Full text of "INDIAN NATIONALISM AND ASIA (1900-1947)"

See other formats

nArm^AUm and asia

( 1900 - 1947 )

BIREDNRA PRASAD

il, pbHMPIHINC OOWCHtATION

First Published. 1952

Distributors :

D.K. PUBLISHERS' DISTRIBUTORS.
1. Ansari Road.

New Delhi-110002

Publishers :

B.R. PUBLISHING CORPORATION.
461, Vivekanand Nagar.

DeIhi-n00S2

Printers :

ASHOKA PRINTERS.
17. Sri Nagar Colony.
Bharat Nagar Road.^
pelhi-110052.

PREFACE

Since India became iodependent in August 1947, the strained every nerve to
remain at friendly terms with the countries of Asia and to co-operate with them
on common problems. This was, to a considerable extent, the outcome of the com¬
mitments of the Indian National Movement which believed that such a path alone
could ensure world peace and contribute to the genm'al well-being of the people
of the Asian continent and liquidate Western domination from Asia. To undier-
stand properly free India’s Asian policy, it becomes, therefore, imperative to study
the attitude of the Indian National Movement towards the nations of Asia and
their freedom struggles. The present work provides an historical background to the
study of India’s policy towards the countries of the Asian continent.

There was lack of a systematic study on the subject before the publication of
the scholarly work entitled The Origins of Indian Foreign Policy^ written by Dr.
Bimal Prasad. But his work has certain limitations. He has confined himself to the
resolutions of the Indian National Congress to trace the origin of Indum outloc^c
on world problems. He has not been exhaustive in his treatment of India’s attitude
towards Asian countries. Moreover, he could not pay attention to the several other
political associations whidi also evolved certain prindples governing India’s attitude
towards Asian people during the period under review. Furthermore, the scholar
kept the editorials of the newspapers and informed public opinion reflected through
mass meetings and demonstrations outside the scope of his work. Some scattoed
references of Indian attitude towards Asian countries are to be found in the works
tnikltd India and Regional Integration in Asia and Indian Nationalism vrs. Inter-
national Commtmism^ written by Sisir Gupta and J. Bandyopadhyay respectivdy.
Iqbal Singh in his book entitled India’s Foreign Policy discussed very briefly the
growth of foreign-afiairs mindedness among the people of India. Werner Levi’s
praiseworthy book entitled Free India in Aria discussed in bridf the attitude of
Nationalist India towards Asian neighbours and the attempts made by Indian
leaders to promote Asian solidarity. O.H. Jansen’s work (Afro-Asia and Non-
Alignment) referred to the growth of Asianism in Indian natimiali^ thinking but
he was also very handy in his treatment. None of these works deals with Asianism
as a marked feature of Indian nationalist thinking in a systematic and comprehen¬
sive manner.

The present work is an humble attempt to fill up those gaps and to discuss in
detail the attitude of the Indian National Movemmit towards the Asian problems
and Asian freedom struggle and also those Auan events and movements which
influenced the Indian natioiialitts during the struggle for independence.

Prefaa

Indian attitude towards Asian people was made known through the resolutions
of the various political associations, writinp and speeches of the nationalist leaden,
public meetings and the newspapen. Most Asian-conscious association was the
Indian National Congress which also spearheaded the struggle for Indian freedom.
Beside it, there were some other associations which, too, spoke of the inherent
unity of Asia or Asian solidarity. These associations Included the All India Women's
Conference, the All India Kisan Conference, the All India Liberal Federation, the
All India Trade Union Congress, the Provincial Conferences, the All India Khilafat
Conference, the All India Ahrar Conference etc. which took casual interest in the
affairs of the Asian nations. I have ventured to*include in this study Ae outlook of
the All India Muslim League. The sole justification for the inclusion of the Muslim
League is the fact that the study of the Indian National Movement, which was not
an unified movement, would remain incomplete without the study of the Muslim
League which enjoyed the support of the bulk of the Muslim population of India.
The Muslim League lacked foreign-affairs mindedness but it evinced keen interest
in the Muslim countries of Asia with whom the Muslims of India had cultural and
sentimental attachment.

The Hindu Mahasabha, which was formed primarily to protect Hindu interests,
did not take much interest in Asian countries but sometimes it expressed its view on
some Asian problems. Wherever its policies were similar to those of the nationalist
front, such reference had been also included in this work.

While making attempts to analyse the attitude of the Indian National Move¬
ment towards the Asian people, I have excluded Soviet Russia from the scope of
this study because Soviet Russia is more an European than an Asiu power
although seven of her republic are in Asia. Again, Indian attitude towards Turkey
had been dealt with till the abolition of the Caliphate by Kemal Pasha who declared
Turkey to be a European nation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

1 Have no words to express my deep sense of gratitude to Dr. Shyam Btbari
Singh, Professor and Head of the Department of History, Magadh University,
Bodh'Gaya, who initiated me into research and encouraged me to pursue this work.
I am extremely beholden to him for the constant guidance, assistance and patron*
age which 1 received from him during the preparation of this work. It would have
rather been difiScult for me to complete this burdensome work without the invalua¬
ble co-operation and guidance which Dr. Singh made available to me whenever I
approached him. My debt to him is incalculable.

I do not know how to thank Dr. K..K. Datta, ex-Vice-Chancellor, Patna and
Magadh Universities, who gave me valuable suggestions on various occasions. I
shall be failing in my duty if I do not express my deep debt of gratitude to Dr.
Dina Nath Verma, Reader in History, Patna University, who suggested me this
topic. I am also thankful to Prof. Aditya Nath Mishra and Dr. D.N. Mallik of
Bihar University, Muzaifarpur, for their kind and valuable suggestions. My special
thanks are due to Dr. R.N. Prasad, Dr. R.S. Bahadiu*, Dr. S. Roy, Smt. Shanti
Singh of my department. I can not forget my friends. Prof. Kunwar Deo Prasad,
Prof. Manager Prasad, Prof. Upendra Prasad Singh, Dr. Y.K. Mishra, Shri R.P:
Singh and Shri Surendra Prasad Singh who always inspired and goaded me to
complete the work.

1 am also thankful to the authorities of the Mannu Lai Magadh University
Library (Bodh-Oaya), Public Library (Gaya), Sinha Library (Patna), Patna Univer¬
sity Library, National Library (Calcutta), National Archives of India (New Delhi)
and Sapru House Library (New Delhi) for their help and co-operation in the
preparation of this work.

My thanks are due to Shri Mohan Singh who spared no pains to type this
thesis in a very nice manner and that too in a very short period.

CONTENTS

Pages

Preface v

Acknowlbdobment vii

I Growth of Nationalism in India 1

II Indian Nationalism and Emergence of Asian Consciousness 23

III Indian Nationalism and Asia 1900>18 35

IV From Dominion to Independence Resolution and the Attempts—made

to Promote Asian Solidarity (1919*29) 69

V Consolidation of the Indian National Movement and Attempts for

Asian SoUdarity (1930-45) 118

VI Last Phase of India's Freedom Struggle and the Zenith of Indian

Attempts for (Asian Solidarity 1945-47) 190

VII Conclusion 228

Bibliography 233

Index 252

CHAPTER /

GROWTH OF NATIONALISM IN INDIA

Growth op Nationalibm in India fonned a brilliant chapter of Indian History.
If the story of the rise and growth of British Imperialism in India was fascinating,
no less interesting is the story of the revolt and development of National Movement
in India. Beyond doubt, the national awakening in India has been the greatest
single development in the first half of the 20th century, although it had its germi¬
nation in the last quarter of the 19th century. As a matter of fact the 19th century
marked the 2^nith of British Imperialism in India and also at the same time the
beginning of the end of the British Empire in India.

The growth of nationalism in India ws^ the result of the interaction and
intermingling of variousfactors—social, religious, cultural, political, economic and
spiritual racial, and of the Western and Eastern, the foreign and indigenous origin.
Indian Nationalism had both an element of response and challenge. It was a
challenge to British domination of India and it was a response in so far as India
derived her inspirations from Western learning and liberalism.

The alien rule itself was basically responsible for the growth of Indian Nation¬
alism. In a sense, political awakening in India was a natural reaction against the
aggressive British imperialism and oppressive British Rule. Despite the declaration
of the Charter of 1833 and Queen^s proclamations of 1858 that Indians would be
given better treatment and would not be discriminated against, nothing was done to
give better treatment to them. Higher services remained the close preserve of the
Europeans As late as 1915 only five per cent .of the po sts o f the supe rior mil
services were occupied by Indians .^ The security of the Empire rested on the Civil
’^ervicesTnd therefore Indians were not entrusted with responsible post. Sir John
Strachey stressed the need that the Civil Services must remain British.^ This policy
of keeping the civil services, the steel preserve of the Englishmen, caused a reaction
against the British domination.

Furthermore, the British Government was an autocracy tempered by the
rule of law but governing without any system of representation. Times and again, it
was declared that self-rule or representative government was not meant for Indians.
Sir Henry Maine could see no place for representative institutions in India.^ Lytton
wrote to Sir E. Perry on April 18, 1877, **We hold India as a conquered

country.which must be governed in all essentials by the strong, unchallenged,

hand of the conquering power".* The natives were considered unsuitable for impor¬
tant and responsible administrative posts* A.O. Hume, usually known as the

Indian Nationalism and Asia

originator of the Congress in India, considered the government, ‘seems to be a
great, cruel, blundering machine, running on by its own weight’.*^ The alien rule and
its bureaucrats were indifferent to the sentiments of the people. Had the bureaucracy
in India taken a milder policy towards the natives there would not have been a wide
gap between the rulers and the ruled. Bernard Houghton very rightly pointed out
that bureaucratic governments in India, whether imperial or provincial, by their
determined opposition to the demands of the people for a share in the government
of the land, had aroused a spirit of patriotism, a will for self-sacrifice, a zeal for the
greatness of their country which had transformed and exalted their lives ® Lord
George Hamilton looked upon the Congress movement as an uprising of Indian
native opinion, not against British Rule, but Anglo-Indian bureaucracy.’ Morley,
the British Secretary of State for India, regarded bureaucracy in India as the real
danger to the British Empire in India.®

A vital factor which aroused the people of India was racial discrimination of
the British Rule which was imbued with strong consciousness of colour and nationa¬
lity. British people considered themselves superior to the Indians® and non-official
Englishmen in India despised the Indians.'® Indians were termed as ‘ nigger’'" and
the European masters perpetrated severe cruelties on the natives. Even the middle
and lower classes of Europeans in India considered themselves a Sahib^^ and
remained aloof from the Indians Sir William Russell had mentioned numerous
cases of ill-treatment and humiliation of the Indians." Charles Dilke, who made a
trip to India in 1867, also admitted that the conduct of non-oflicial Englishmen in
India was highly distressing Sir Henry Cotton mentioned the abuses, insults and
assaults hurled upon the native population by the British officials as well as non-
officials and pointed out that the more educated the Indian, the more he was
disliked by Englishmen, for he wanted to be treated as an equal'® by those who
were taught to regard themselves as gentlemen engaged in the magnificent work of
"Governing an inferior race'’.'’ Such an attitude created a wide gulf between the
natives and the foreigners. The result was that the feelings of bitterness between the
rulers and the ruled prevailed and went on ever widening.

Thus hard, much more harsh British Rule than that of the Company’s Raj,'® the
obstinate bureaucracy and the ill-treatment of the Indians at the hands of the
Whitemen in India, the autocratic nature of the British Government and its denial
of the system of representation to the Indian people awakened the Indians to their
humiliating status in the British system and the result was national consciousness in
India. Madan Mohan Malaviya truly represented the Indian feeling when he asked
the British to grant representative institutions to India as they had conceded the
same to Canada and Australia.'® The main demands of the early nationalists were
the extensive employment of Indians in the higher administrative posts and the
steady development of representative institutions in India but the British rejected
both the demands which created a dislike for the British Rule in India.

The British Rule, which was denounced by Dadoba Pandurang Tarkhadkar in
1841 as the "most bitter curse India has ever been visited with And by Bai
Gangadhar Tilak as "a predatory foreign incubus rather than a blessing'\-^ also
helped the growth of national consciousness in India by the administrative and
economic unification of India under British Rule. Before the advent of the British,

Growth of Nationalism in India

the people of India had thought of themselves in terms of regions they came from,
rather than as Indians. Regional feelings had increased so much that the British
historians Seely''^^ and Strachey‘‘‘’’ described India as a mere geographical expression.
The improvements in communications, such as roads and railways, good postal and
telegraph services, introduction of English as the lingua franca for the whole country
by the British brought people from distant parts of India closer and made the
people think themselves as one nation and helped the growth of nationalism on an
all-India basis. Even the nationalist leader like Dadabhai Naoroji appreciated the
British Rule for joining together the different parts of India and admitted in his
presidential address to the Indian National Congress held in 1886 that no such
congress could have been convened at any time in the past either in the days of
Vikram during Hindu rule or during the rule of Akbar in the Muslim period.-^

Christian Missionaries and their activities also stimulated national consciousness
among the Indians. They opened schools for the spread of education and advocated
various reforms ir. the social and religious life of India. It was also through them
that liberal principles of the We^t were brought to the natives which helped the
movement for self rule and representative institutions. Debendra Nath Tagore,-®
N.G. Chandavarkar-” and Lajpat Rai-’ appreciated the role of the Christian Missio¬
naries in making the people alive to the social and religious needs. If the Christian
Missionaries stimulated a new consciousness among the Indians by the spread of
education and by making Indians familiar with the liberal principles of the West,
they also challenged some of the assumptions of Hindu religion and Hindu social
system. This created a reaction among the Indians who came forward to defend
their system by removing some of the ills of the Indian Society. The fear of Christian
Missionaries led to the beginning of much social wisdom among the Indians.^®
Indians, thus, awakened became conscious of their interests.

Economic grievances played a dominant role in fostering anti-British feeling
among the Indian people because the Indian nationalists held the view that under
British Rule Indians suffered from economic domination even more than from
political domination-” and they were of the firm opinion that if they were given the
option to choose between political and economic swaraj they would certainly
choose economic swaraj.'-^''

In the beginning the Indian nationalists were much impressed by the introduc¬
tion of railways, postal services and other benefits of the British Rule in India.
Leaders like G.K. Gokhale spoke of the British connection as providential.®^
Dadabhai Naoroji declared that Indians were attached to *‘this foreign rule with a
deeper loyalty then even to our past native rule.”®® But soon the situation changed.
Naoroji, who had promised “deeper/oyo/r>',” began to be disloyal and in 1901 he
declared that the Indians had stood their exploitation by the British too long and
warned the British that it would be wrong assumption that their loyalty could not
fail, that it would not continue in the same condition in which it was at the present.®®
Why this change ? The reason was that Indian leaders gradually understood that the
British claim, that India had made material progerss under the British Rule was a
myth. Tilak wrote in 1893 : “How the people were dazzled at first by the discipline
of the British. Railways, Telegraph, Roads, Bridges and Schools bewildered the
people. Riots ceased and people could enjoy peace and calm. People began

indtan Nationalism and Asia

to say that even a blind person can safely travel from Benaras to Rameshwar with
gold tied to a stick. But as the influence of the wine does not last long this illusion
arising out of the revolution did not last long. The blind man may travel with gold
tied to his stick but day-by-day people realised that gold was getting scarce.”®^
Indian leaders began to talk of the poverty of the people. G.S. Iyer considered
poverty of India to be the root evil of the whole economic condition of India”®®
and B.C. Pal wrote in 1901 that of all the perplexing problems that confronted
India, the economic problem was the most pressing®® and Naoroji complained that
India was sinking in poverty.” R.C. Dutt declared in 1901 that the poverty of
Indian population was unparalleled in any civilised country.®®

For all this Indian leaders held the alien domination responsible. They thought
that the economic ruin of India was the result of a mercantilist British policy which
had made Indian economy subordinate to the British economy. Surendra Nath
Banerjcc emphatically stated that it had been the settled policy of England in India
ever since her rise in political power to convert India into a land of raw produce for
the benefit of the manufacturers and operatives of England.®® Anti-Indian economic
policies of the British India Government resulted in the decline of all indigenous
arts and industries which caused the poverty of the Indian people. In view of the free
trade policy in 1879 Lord Lytton exempted all the imported cotton goods containing
no yarn finer than produced in India from duty. This led the Indian leaders to think
that Britain pursued a deliberate policy of stamping out India’s Industries.

Indian leaders and Press attacked this measure of the Government of India.
Public meetings were held in Bombay^" and Calcutta'* to protest against the action
of the Government of India. People were heavily taxed, and the money collected
was drained out of the country in the form of the salary of the civil servants. In
the very first session of the I.N.C., Naoroji accused the rulers of screwing out more
and more taxes, like squeezing a squeezed orange—inflicting sulTering and distress.'®
Economic grievances of the Indian people found vent in the drain theory which
revealed that a greater part of India’s national wealth or total annual product was
being exported to England for which India received no economic returns or benefits.
Naoroji declared in 1867 that out of revenues raised in India nearly one-fourth goes
clean out of the country and is added to the resources of England as a result of
which India was ft/f'J."® R.C. Dutt claimed that nearly one half

of India’s net annual revenue flowed out of the country in the form of salaries to
the British oiiicers and the purchase of manufactured goods and the mohture of
India blesses and fertilises other lands**

The deteriorating economic position of the country and the anti-national
economic policy fanned anti-British feeling. An Indian paper, the Satya Mitra,
dated February 9, 1888 warned the British Government to bear in mind that even
the meak cow can, if enraged, tear the elephant to pieces or will kick the milkman
if he attempts to milk after she has yielded the whole of the milk in her udder.®®
Indian people rallied to the support of Naoroji’s thesis that without “Self-Govern¬
ment the Indians can never get rid of their present drain, and the consequent
impoverishment, misery, and destruction. No palliative of any kind whatever, no
more alteration and tinkering of the mechanical machinery of administration, can
and will do any good at all. The drain can only be stopped by the government, by

Growth of Nationalism in India

the people themselves.. Self-government is the only remedy for India’s woes and
wrongs.^” These statments stirred the minds of the Indian people and became the
guidelines for the Indian nationalists.

If the British reduced Indian people to a dead level mass of labourers*’’ Western
education infused a new life into the dead bones of the Indian Nation.''® To a great
extent, Indian nationalism was the foster-child of Western education. Through their
knowledge of English language Indians from different parts of the country were
able to discuss things together and create a sense of national consciousness.

Long before Salisbury had warned that the newly educated Indians cannot
be anything else than an opposition in quiet times, rebels in time of trouble.'® Lord
Salisbury's fear was genuine. Western education acquainted the Indians with the
progressive political theories of Bentham, J.S. Mill, Rousseau, Spencer and created
a ferment in India.^“ The revolutions and the liberalism of the 19th century Europe
quickened the national upsurge and inspired the Indians to demand for the appli¬
cation of those liberal principles in India. In their presidential addresses for the
I.N.C. in 1895 and 1897 Surendra Nath Banerjee'’' and Sankaran NairV respectively
admitted that it was English education that had taught the Indians to ask for cons¬
titutional refornis. John Stuart Mill’s saying that “The Government of a people
by itself has a meaning and a reality but such a thing as government by one people
over another does not and cannot exist” became an ideal for the educated Indians.
“English education,” Jawaharlal Nehru significantly observed, “widened the Indian
horizon and created an admiration for English literature and institutions, a revolt
against some customs and aspects of Indian life and a growing demand for political
reforms”.®® Long before in 1885 Henry Cotton had pointed out that a feeling of
nationality was fast developing in India mainly as a result of English education and
that the emancipation of India had become inevitable ever since a system of English
education was established.®' Under the influence of the liberal and democratic
principles filtered into India through Western education Indian nationalists started
their struggle against the alien rule and the early Cong-f-ess leaders were largely
inspired by the large hearted liberalism of the 19th century English politics.”’"

Nationalism always thrives on past memories and achievements. It was more
so in the case of India which had a rich historical tradition and culture. At a time
when Sir Henry Maine, a member of the Governor-General’s Council from 1862-69,
was speaking very low of Indian people®", the re-discovery of the glorious past of
Indian civilisation and culture in the late 19th century questioned the hypothesis
that Britain represented a higher civilisation and that the West had a civilising mis¬
sion in India and infused a fresh vigour in the Indian people. Sir Charles Wilkins, Sir
William Jones, H.H Wilson, Maxmuller, Bopp, Cunningham, Sir John Marshall,
Rajendra Lai Mitra, M G Ranade, B G. Tilak, R.G. Bhandarkar, R.D. Banerjee, K.
T. Telang and Raj Narain Bose through their endless endeavours discovered the glo¬
ries of the ancient Hindus in art, literature, religion, civilisation and culture. “This
revelation,” observed by R.C. Majumdar, “could not fail to stir deeply the hearts of
Indians,with the results that they were imbued with a spirit of nationalism and
ardent-patriotism.”” “The awakening of India,” truly observed Jawaharlal Nehru,
‘was of two folds. She looked to the West and at the same time, she looked at her¬
self and her own past for inspiration.’®®

Indian Nationalism and Asia

The Indian press played an important part in promoting national spirit in
India. Newspapers— Indian Mirror, The Bombay Samachar, The Hindu, The
Hindoo Patriot, The Amriia Bazar Patrika, The Keshari, The Bengalee, The Jndu
Prakash, The Hitavadi, The Mahratta, The Bihar Herald, The Yugantar, The Tribune,
The Leader and several otheis, educated the Indian Public opinion, made the peo¬
ple familiar with the ills of the government, put forward the demand for self-rule,
supported the nationalist organisations in their programmes and protested against
the repressive and exploitative character of the British Rule and in doing so helped
the cause of the nationalist movement and served the role of a constitutional opposi¬
tion}'' Such a tremendous role was played by the Indian Press in creating national
consciousness that Sir Thomas Munro'’’" and Mountstuart Elphinstone*^ expressed
the fear that a free press and a foreign Rule could not exist together. If the Indian
Press played a praiseworthy role in arousing national consciousness no less signifi¬
cant was the part of popular literature in creating a passion for national freedom
and in stimulating dormant souls of millions of India. Dinbandhu Mitra's Nil
Dapan contributed to the resurgence of modern India ““ The national lyrics of Hem
Chandra Banerjee whom Aurobindo Ghosh called “one of the mightiest prophets of
Indian Nationalism}'^^ Championed the legitimate rights of the Indians and inspired
all the nationalist leaders.*^ The writings of Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, Rajendra
Lai Mitra, Raj Narain Bose, Bhudev Mukhopadhyay, Madbusudan Dutta, Dwijen-
dra Nath Tagore, Ranglal and Govinda Chandra Roy appealed to the dumb
millions of India to be ready to liberate the motherland from the immeasurable
pathos Of all these writers Bankim Chandra Chatterjee exercised the greatest
influence in India and his works bewailed the loss of independence in the heart-rend¬
ing manner and stirred up the imagination of the people and made them devotees
to the cause of the nation. Bipin Chandra Pal®" called him the prophet of Indian
cultural renaissance and Aurobindo Ghosh regarded him as one of the “Makers
of Modern India."^' What Bankim Chandra was for Bengali, Bhartendu Harish
Chandra was for Hindi literature. Speaking in disgust and in a patriots tone his
works, Bharat Durdasha; Bharat Janani; and Andher Nagari made the people con¬
scious of their miserable condition under British Rule®" and instilled political con¬
sciousness among the Hindi speaking people. Thus, a band of scholars, writers and
poets through their works facilitated the growth of Indian Nationalism.

Political awakening in India was not an isolated event. It bore the impact of
similar movements ol the world. “India’s awakening,” Tagore rightly observed, “is
part of the world awakenirg.”®" In Europe it was in the 19th century that Germany
and Italy attained national unification. In England this century witnessed the move¬
ment for parliamentary reforms. All these exercised a healthy influence upon the
minds of Indians and invigorated in the Indian people a spirit to ask for the reforms
that were taking place in England. The demand for representative government in
India assumed more and more vigorous form under the influence of the Young Turk
Movement, the victory of Japan in the Russo-Japanese War, the introduction of
representative institutions in colonies like New South Wales, New Zeland, New
Foundland, Barbadoes and in the Philippines, the Chinese Revolution of 1911, the
rise of Sinn Fein Movement in Ireland and the Russian revolutions of 1905 and
1917.’®

Growth of Nationalism in India

However, all the political, economic and racial grievances of the Indian people
and the Western contact could not have produced a truly Indian National Move¬
ment, if there had not been at the same time a genuine urge from within, a spirit of
renaissance aiming at the redemption of her people from the crushing load of un¬
reason, social abuses and political servitude.’^ The religious and social awakening
in the 19th century prepared the base for the national movement in India. Referr¬
ing to India’s new awakening C.F. Andrews very aptly remarked : “This awakening
would have been wholly insulhcient to usher in a new era if it had not been combin¬
ed with a second and even greater change. A religious reformation has been advan¬
cing side by side with the new renaissance”” Various reform movements transform¬
ed the very character of the national life and the spiritual idealism accompanying
these reform movements became a potent factor in fostening the forces of nationa¬
lism.

Era of social and religious reforms started with Ram Mohan Roy who fought
vigorously against the corrupt practices, the superstitions and inhuman customs of
the Hindu society and against the narrow parochial outlook of Indian mind. Behind
his religious and social reform activities was his desire to regenerate political con-
sciounsness in India Though the R.ija welcomed the British Rule, he fought like
a lion to increase the political liberties of the Indian and to liberalise the British
Rule.” Debendra Nath Tagore and Keshab Chandra upon whom fell the leadership
of the Brahmo Samaj after Ram Mohan Roy thought that the salvation of India
lay in the religious upliftment of the people. Though a religious and social reformer
Keshab Chandra Sen seemed to be burning with an intense patriotism and urged the
people to arise from the stupor and assured them that the Messed morning of your
redemption had come.” Keshab Chandra carried the message of Brahmo Samaj all
over India. His visit to England also stimulated political consciousness among the
Indian people. The political movement inaugurated by Ananda Mohan Ba'^u and
Surendra Nath Banerjee through the Indian Association owed its psychological
origin to the ideal of freedom emphasi.sed in the Brahmo Samjj and the new natio¬
nal .self-confidence and self-consciousness quickened by visit of Keshab Chandra to
England.'® In short, the Brahmo Samaj through its activities in social and religious
fields prepared the ground for national awakening.

Dayananda founded the Arya Samaj in 1875 and held the superfluous rituals
sponsored by Brahmin priests responsible for the degradation of the Hindu Society
and regarded the i^edas as timeless and divine in origin” and warned the Indians
not to be mere imitators of European modes of thought.’® By claiming the Vedas
containing the highest religious truth, he” injected into the dormant soul of millions
of India the sense of self-respect. Moreover, Dayananda stressed the need of indi¬
genous rule.®** Har Bilas Sarda, the biographer of Dayananda, maintained, “Political
independence was one of the first objectives of Dayananda.”®' B C. Pal also pointed
out that the movement of Dayananda, as organised in the Arya Samaj, contributed
more than the Brahmo Samaj to the birth of national consciousness in India.®-

Ram Krishna stimulated the growth of national consciousness among the peo¬
ple by proclaiming the superiority of Indian culture®’ and in doing so he gave the
rising nationalist, ‘consciousness,’ a weapon with which to fight the West.®' Ram
Krishna’s disciple Vivekananda declared the religious superiority of the Hindus,

Indian Nationalism and Asia

opposed the social Europeanisation of the Indians and taught self-respect and ins¬
pired his countrymen to accept their own traditional culture and values.®® By his
speeches and activities he stimulated the pride of the Indians in their own culture
and religion and strengthened the spirit of political nationalism. R.G. Pradhan
rightly observed, "Swami Vivekananda might well be called the father of modern
Indian nationalism, he largely created it and also embodied in his own life its high¬
est and noblest elements.”®®

The Theosophist movement strengthened the pride of Hindus in their ancient
civilisation and declared that the religious and moral principles inculcated by
Hinduism were not inferior to those of any other religion.®’ This new message com¬
ing from the representatives of the most advanced people of the world raised Indians
in their own estimation and created self-confidence among the Indians.®® Valentine
Chirol blamed Annie Besant for encouraging unrest in India.®®

Closely allied with religious reform movement was the social reform movement
which opposed various social abuses and helped the cause of Indian nationalism.
Reformers like Ram Mohan Roy, Ishwar Chandra, Dadoba Pandurang, Kishori
Chandra Mitra, M.G. Ranade, R.G. Bhandarkar, M. Malabari, N.G, Chandavar-
kar, K.T. Telang, Viswanath Narayan Mandalik, Gopal Hari Deshmukh, Viresalin-
gam Pantulu, Jotiba Govind Phule and several others awakened the people to the
ills of the society and stimulated ethos and vigour in society which helped to foster
national spirit.®"

Surendra Nath Banerjee rightly stated that in the evolution of political progress
bad rulers are often a blessing in disguise.”^ The repressive policy of Lord Lytton’s
regime (1876-80) accelerated the pace of the nationalist movement. When the coun¬
try was facing a gigantic famine Lord Lytton held Imperial Durbar in 1877.

Abolition of cotton import duty in the interest of Manchester, the lowering of
the age limit for entrance to the Civil Services Examination from 21 to 19, the
Vernacular Press Act, the Indian Arms Act, the large increase in the army under
the hallucination of the Russian invasion, the wanton invasion of Kabul and the
Second Afghan War made the people totally against the British regime. Under
Lytton “the cup of national endurance and patience seemed almost full,” and his
“incapacity to realise the conditions of the country, his reckless desire to glorify his
rule and his apparent want of any higher principles all but wrecked the British
Dominion in the East.”®- The state of things at the end of Lord Lytton’s regime was
bordering upon revolution.®®

The shrewed British Government sent after Lytton, a liberal Viceroy, Lord
Ripon, who repealed the Vernacular Press Act. To remove racial distinction in the
sphere of justice and to amend the Criminal Procedure Code, Ilbert Bill, which
aimed at investing the Indian Judges powers to try Europeans also, was introduced
in the Imperial Legislative Council in February, 1883. Europeans living in India
vehemently opposed the Bill and an Anglo-Indian and European Defence League
was immediately formed to carry on the agitation against the Bill.®*

Protest meetings were held all over the country.®® Under the pressure of the
agitation the Bill was revised in such a way that the very purpose of the Bill was
defeated. But the Ilbert Bill exposed Europeans’s contempt for Indians and taught
the Indians the value of organisation. The Ilbert Bill agitation was a landmark in

Growth of Nationalism in India

the history of Indian political consciousness in the sense that it strengthened the
forces that were speeding up the birth of Congress movement.*®

All these forces prepared the ground for national awakening and strengthened
the desire of the Indians to organise an all India political organisation. The Indian
National Congress, which was the greatest political organisation to carry on the
nationalist struggle, was established in 1885. But even before the birth of the Indian
National Congress, some associations bad sprung up to promote national interests.
The first organisation formed for political purposes was the Zamindary Association '
of Bengal founded in 1837 which changed its name to the Landholders Society which
taught the Indians “to assert their claims and give expression to their opinions”.*’
Another political organisation during the pre-mutiny era was the British India
Society established in April 1843, which failed to rouse political consciousness even
amongst the limited circle of educated men in Bengal.** “The first political body to
adopt an All India outlook’"''’ was the British Indian Association formed in October
1851. The object of the new association was to secure improvements in the local 1
administration of the country and in the system of government laid down by ,
Parliament.^'”’ Branches of the association were opened in Oudh, Madras and
Bombay. After mutiny the association ceased to represent the political ambitions of
the Indian people.’"' However, by 1870 it was “the only political body in the whole j
of India respected by government”,’"' Sisir Kumar Ghosh, the leading Bengali |
of the 19th century, established the India League to stimulate nationalism among |
the people and to encourage political education.’" ' It was the first political body in ■
India to seek more than casual ties with political groups outside its own province, j
and thus, it antedated Surendra Nath Banerjee’s Indian Association, in this all India i
purpose,"'' it was the first marked sign of the awakening of the people on this side ;
of India to political life.'" '

In 1875 the Indian Association was established by Surendra Nath B,inerjee
who defined the objects of the association as the creation of a strong body of public
opinion in the country, the unification of the Indian races and people upon the basis
of common political interests and aspirations and the inclusion of the masses in the
great public movements of the day."*® The association protested against the age
limit for the Indian Civil Services, and launched a massive agitation against the
repressive policies of the Government. The Indian association summoned the First
National Conference in Calcutta in December, 1883. Both Hindus and Muslims
attended the conference. As a matter of fact, the Calcutta conference anticipated
the Congress by two years and in a large measure prepared the ground for the great
national assembly.’"’ The Second session of the National Conference held in
Calcutta in 1885 discussed most of the urgent problems of India and sent a telegram
to the conference of the Congress to be held at Bombay expressing their sympathy
with the approaching conference in Bombay.’"*

Needless to say that Bengal took the lead in establishing political associations
but the other provinces did not lag behind. The Bombay Association was formed in
Bombay Presidency in the year 1852 which shortly became practically extinct.’"*
A branch of the East India Association of London was opened at Bombay in 1871
but by 1883 it proved a decided failure.”" As a result of the efforts of Pheroz Shah
Mehta, Badruddin Tyabji and K.T. Telang and Bombay Presidency Association was

Indian Nationalism and Asia

organised in 1885. This association concerned itself with all matters of common
interest.^^^ In 1870, Poona established the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha which led to a
new awakening in Maharastra.”'*

In South India, public life was inaugurated by the Hindu.”® The most
organised political association in the South was Madras Mahajan Sabha which
enlisted the active sympathy and co-operation of almost all the culture and public
spirit of the Presidency.'

All these developments bore testimonies to the fact that the educated Indians
sincerely felt the need of an All Indian Association. Their concerted attempts were
crowned with success in 1885 when the Indian National Congress was formed.

But it had been one of the enigmas of history as to who originated this idea of
an All India Congress. Pattabhi Sitaramayya has discussed the Genesis of the Indian
National Congress in the following words: “Apart from the Great Durbar of 1877
or the International Exhibition in Calcutta which are supposed to have furnished the
model for the great national assemblage, it is also said that the idea was conceived
in a private meeting of seventeen men after the iheosophical convention held at

Madras in December, 1884_Whatever the origin and whoever the originator of

the idea, we come to this conclusion, that the idea was in the air, that the need of
.such organisation was being felt, that Mr. Allan Octavian Hume took the initia-
tive'’.”'^ Malabari”® and G S. Iyer”’ traced the origin of the Congress to the
demonstrations in 1884 to mark Ripon’s departure from India. Dr. Nandlal
Chatterjee has suggested that the Briiish helped the formation of such a body to
rally Indian public opinion agaimst the apprehended Russian menace.”** B L. Grover
also maintained that Russophobia compelled the British to devise means for
mustering the support of the Indian people in the event of the Russian invasion of
India.”"

Whatever might had been the reasons for the creation of the Congress and
whatever might had been the genesis of this great political association, the Indian
National Congress was the culmination of the evolution of the political ideas and
associations that existed before its birth. However, the history of the genesis of the
Congress would remain incomplete without reference to the role played by A.O.
Hume in the formation of the Congress. Gopal Krishna Gokhale, in a statement in
London in 1913, declared that it was the commanding personality of Hume that
made the Congress possible in India.Hume, who has the wisdom to understand
that the broadest dissemination of Western education and Western ideas of liberty
had let loose forces in India which needed control and direction into Channels
through which they might flow, not to ravage and destroy but to fertilise and
regenerate, took the initiative in the foundation of the Indian National Congress.’®^
He found that economic and political unrests were becoming more and more vehe¬
ment in India and opposition to the British rule was increasing day in and day out.
To “counteract the growing unrest””® and to keep the growing unrest under
reasonable bounds Hume thought that some definite action was needed. He address¬
ed an open letter to the graduates of the Calcutta University on March 1, 1883
and urged them to establish an association with an object to promote the mental,
moral, spiritual, political and social regeneration of the people of India.^®®

This appeal had a remarkable effect on the Indian people and by the end of

Growth of Nationalism in India

1884 the Indian National Union was formed. Hume wanted that the Union should
concentrate on social question and consulted Duflferin, the then Viceroy of India,
who advised Hume that his scheme would not do much service to the people if it
concentrated only on social problems Dufferin said that there was no association
in India which performed the functions which the opposition did in England. Hence
it would be very desirable in the interests of both the ruler and the ruled, Dufferin
urged, that Indian politicians should meet yearly and point out to the Government
in what respects the administration was defective and how it could be improved. He
further suggested that an assembly, such as he proposed, should not be presided
over by the Local Governor as Hume had proposed, because in the presence of the
Governor the people might not like to speak out their minds. Dufferin had made
it a condition with Hume that his name in connection with the scheme of the
Congress should not be divulged so long as he remained in India. Hume put
DufTerin’s proposals before leading politicians in Calcutta, Bombay, Madras and
other parts of the country who adopted Duflferin’s scheme and proceeded to give
effect to it.’“' S.K. Ratclifie subscribed to the views of Wedderburn and wrote:
“Lord DufTerin’s attitude at this time was interesting and revcahng. Not only did
he welcome the Congress, but it was he who, when Hume told him of his intention
to begin reform agitation on the social side of Indian life, advised him to widen its
scope and aim definitely at political education”.’"^ Blessed or not by Dufferin,
Hume proposed for the formation of the Congress which was to serve the purpose
of “a safety-valve” and “an overt and constitutional channel” for the discharge of
Indian ferment.’-^'*

The Indian National Union, formed by Hume in 1884, decided in March, 1885
to hold a conference at Poona in the last week of December 1885 and issued a
circular letter for this. As Cholera broke out in Poona the venue of the conference
was shifted to Bombay and its name was changed into Indian National Congress.
The first session of the Congress began on December 25, 1885 and was presided
over by W.C. Banerjee. In his presidential address W C. Banerjee laid down the
objects of the Congress which included the promotion of personal intimacy and
friendship amongst the workers in Country’s cause throughout the various parts of
the Empire; the eradication by direct intercourse at all possible race, creed or pro¬
vincial prejudices amongst all lovers of the country and the fuller development and
consolidation of the sentiments of national unity.^^’ About 72 delegates from diffe¬
rent parts of India attended the conference.The first session of the Congress held
at Bombay appeared more or less like a drawing room gathering.’*® But as the
years rolled by the Congress became a giant organisation and its popularity
increased to such an extent that an English correspondent wrote in 1889 that the
Congress had become a factor in the affairs of India and England that has to be
reckoned with.’®*’

The Indian National Congress, in its early years, did not aim at complete
severance of India’s connection with England. ‘‘Unsweving loyalty to the British
Crown”, wrote by Wedderburn, was to be the key-note of the institution,’®’ and the
aim of the Congress was to educate the Indian people into a genuine parliamentary
frame of mind.’®* The early Congressmen merely wanted to liberalise the British
Rule and to get certain political and constitutional reforms. It would seem surprising

Indian Nationalism and Asia

that the Congress, which fought for the freedom of the nation, in its early years,
was an association which aimed at political and constitutional concessions and was
loyal to the British Raj, when, in his presidential address to the Congress in 1886,
Dadabhai Naoroji put the question “Is this Congress a nursery of sedition and
rebellion against the British Government” ? the delegates cried “no, no”; when,
continuing he asked, “or is it another stone in the foundation of the stability of that
Government” ? the answer was "yes,

In the beginning the oificial attitude towards the Congress was friendly. Lord
Dufferin in 18H6 and Lord Connemara in 1887 invited the members of the second
and third sessions of the Congress held respectively at Calcutta and Madras, as
disiinguishcd visitors to garden parties of the Government house.’^‘ Even the early
Congressmen claimed that the Congress was the result of the existence of the
British influence in the country.But this cordial relation between the Government
and the Congress could not last long and it was replaced by a relation of mutual
distrust and antagonism. H. Whitehead recorded that most Englishmen in India
were, from the very beginning, hostile to the Congress and in the early years of the
Congress all talks oj self-government in India was regarded by the majority of the
British as disloyal Even Lord Dufi’erin, who was supposed to be in favour of the
formation of the Congress, in his speech at St. Andrews Day Dinner in Calcutta
on November 30, 1888 termed the Congress as a “microscopic minority” and
ridiculed the Congress’s demand for the introduction of democratic methods of
government in India. The Government of India in 1890 prevented the government
oflicials from attending the meetings of the Congress.^'"* Seeing the growing popu¬
larity of the Congress in India, Hamilton wrote to Curzon in May 1899 suggesting
means to counteract the activities of the Congress.’^” Lord Curzon came to India
as Viceroy m 1899 to assist it (Congress) to a peaceful demise.^*”

The Indian National Congress was a symbol of India’s urge for freedom.
Nevertheless, the statement of the oificial historian of the Congress that “the
Hi.story of the Congress is really the history of India’s struggle for freedom”^ "
a>uld not be accepted as a balanced judgment on the achievements of this great
organisation It would be historically inaccurate to say that the Congress was the
only body that symbolised the freedom struggle, for there were other forces at
work. It would again be historically inaccurate to say that Indian nationalism was
a single or unified movement with local manifestations which were related to an
overall conception making for the unity or homogeneity. India, in fact, experienced
many nationalisms as many as there were generally accepted ideas of the nation.
As developments in the 20ih century proved some of those nationalisms “worked
in oppo.sition to others”.^^'^ In other words, side-by-side the nationalism of the
Congress flourished another nationalism known as Muslim nationalism which at
times co-operated with the former and at times was oppo.sed to it.

A host of factors played part in giving a separate identity to the national
aspirations of the Muslims in India. In the 19th century the Muslims had developed
little political consciousness in comparison to their Hindu fellows because they lacked
both the necessary education and the contacts.^"*® As against the Hindus, the
Muslims did not take the English education with enthusiasm and were averse to the
secular education which resulted in their backwardness as compared to Hindus.

Growth of Nationalism in India

In 1865-66 the Muslims formed only three and a half per cent of the total enrolment
of colleges.*^* The proportion of Muslims to Hindus in gazetted appointments since
1880 was one-tenth.^'*^

During the first-half of the 19th century the attitude of the Muslims towards
the British was hostile and the Wahabbi movement and the Mutiny of 1857-58
convinced the government that the Muslims were inimical to the British The

British were so distrustful of the Muslims that all over the North-western Provinces
a Mohammedan was another word for a rebel.^'^

But soon the tables turned and the policy of hostility gave way to the policy of
reconciliation. In bringing the Muslims near to the British Government and in
weaning the government from its policy of suppression to one of paternalism and
in creating a new awakening among the Muslims W.W. Hunter and Sir Syed Ahmed
Khan played the significant role. W.W. Hunter in his famous book entitled Indian
Musiaimans pointed out that the anti-Muslim policy of the government had alienat¬
ed the Indian Muslims who were Simmering with anti-British feeling and pleaded
for a more lenient attitude towards the Muslims to make them loyal to the British
Another man who awakened the Muslims to Western learning and who
infused vigour in the Muslim Community was Sir Syed Ahmed Khan.*''-’ Even be¬
fore the arrival of Sir Syed on the political firmament of India, the Muslims had
established their own associations to further the cause of the Muslim Community.
The first political association, which the Muslims established, was the Mohammedan
Association of 1855.* ’" In 1863 the Mohammedan Literary and Scientific Society of
Calcutta was established by Abdul Latif. The Society aimed at persuading the
Muslims to study the English language to help them in securing a substantial share
in Government services.* ’* It had about 200 members'-'" by 1865 and it rendered
valuable services in spreading among the Muslims the study of English.*-''-* Calcutta
saw the birth of a new association, namely. National Mohammedan Association
in 1878 with Syed Amir Ali as the Secretary. The association was formed with the
object of promoting the well-being of the Mussalmans of India,by all legitimate and
constitutional means. The association had 54 branches spreading all over India
in 1888.’-''''* Significant feature of the association was that Hindu leaders like Surendra
Nath Banerjec, Ramesh Chandra Mitter, W.C. Banerjee, were the Honorary mem¬
bers of the association.**’'* The association asked for a proportion of jobs to be
reserved for the Muslims,and co-operated with other leaders on the question of
the Ilbert Bill. Amir Ali joined the Hindu members in the Imperial Legislative
Council to support the Ilbert Bill.'-'*'*

The Central Mohammedan Association did not like the Congress attitude of
uneasiness towards the Government,*-'*'-’ and became hostile to the programme of the
Congress for representative institutions which they thought, would lead to the
political extinction of the Mohammedans.*Amir Ali and Abdul Latif refused to
take part in the Congress session held at Calcutta in 1886.*®*

The greatest movement to awaken political consciousness among the Muslims
was the Aligarh Movement of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. Throughout his life Sir Syed
urged his co-religionists to keep faith in the British Raj and to keep in touch with
Western education.*®-* He further told his co-religionists that unless they assimilate
European Arts and Sciences they would remain in wretched state.*®** His attempts

Indian Nationalism and Asia

for the regeneration of his Community bore fruit in the establishment of the M.A.O.
College at Aligarh which became the centre of a great educational, social and cultu¬
ral movement among the Muslims in India.^®^ To promote Western learning in the
Muslims Sir Syed formed the Translation Society which was to translate scientific
and historical works from English into Urdu.“®

Sir Syed was not a separatist in the early years of his life. On several occasions
he had stressed Hindu-Muslim unity and had described India as a beautiful bird
whose two eyes were Hindus and Muslims provided the two eyes shone with equal
lustre.^®® On January 2,1884, Sir Syed addressed an audience at Gurdaspur ;

“Remember that the words Hindu and Mohammedan are only meant for
religious distinction otherwise all persons, whether Hindu or Mohammedan or
even Christian, who reside in this country, are all in this particular respect
belonging to one and the same nation”.^®’

Soon after Sir Syed changed his attitude and the man who had once preached
the gospel of one and united India began to propagate that India was not a single
nation and that Hindus and Muslims constituted two nations.^®® Numerous factors
were responsible for this trend of thinking in the Muslim Community of India.
Growth of Muslim separatism was facilitated by the British Government’s policy to
divide and rule and to placate the Muslims. Sir John Strachey'®*’ and Lt. John
Coke'^® asked the British that their endeavours in India should be to uphold in full
force the separation which existed between the different religions and races and
should not forget the maxim of Devide et impera in governing a big country like
India. Beck and Morisun, the two British principals of the Aligrah College were
“the architects of Muslim separatism”.’’^ Beck made a systematic effort to alienate
the Muslims from the Hindus and asked the Muslims to dissociate themselves from
the Congress which was the instigator of “a mutiny”.”-’Thus, ofiBcial and non¬
official influences compelled the Muslims to see in the Congress a seditious
movement aiming at the introduction of a '"Hindu Raj" fatal to the interests of the
whole community.”®

The schism between the Hindus and Muslims had been traced to the aggressive¬
ness and religious revival activities of the Hindus.”'* The Hindu revivalist movement,
which was more anti-Muslim than anti-British to Khalid B. Sayecd”® produced a
wave of suspicion and unrest in the minds of the Muslims in India. Moreover, the
Muslims in India under Pan-Islamic infieuences began to evince keen interest in the
Muslim Countries of the World which, in turn, gave birth to the feeling that
Muslims outside India were more allied to them than their Hindu neighbours.”® The
unfortunate controversy over Hindi Versus. Urdu embittered the relationship bet¬
ween the Hindus and Muslims. The Hindus of Benaras started a movement in 1867
to replace Urdu by Hindi and the Arabic Script by Nagari which enraged the
Muslims. As early as 1867 Sir Syed told Mr. Shakespeare, the Divisional Commis¬
sioner of Benaras, “Now 1 am convinced that the two Communities will not be able
to co operate sincerely in any matter. It is only the beginning. He who lives will
see”.^” Thus, a number of factors helped the growth of Muslim separatism and
towards the close of the 19th century, Muslims started to look upon themselves as
composing one nation, distinct from other Indians.

Considering the Muslims as a separate nation, Sir Syed asked his followeis to

Growth of Nationalism in india

keep aloof from the Congress which according to Sir Syed's adviser. Beck, was
becoming a deadly engine of sedition}’’* Sir Syed developed a phobia of tyranny of
the majority over the minority. 1'he Congress in its very first session had demanded
the reconstitution of Legislative Council on representative basis to a certain extent.
Sir Syed opposed this demand on the ground that the representative institutions
would only increase the predominance of the Hindus in the legislatures. He further
argued that India was not fit for representative institutions as she was peopled with
different nations}’’* He characterised the proposals of the Congress as monstrous and
unreasonable}** He told his co-religionists that the object of the promoters of the
National Congress is that Government of India should be English in name only,
and that the internal rule of the country should be entirely in their own hands.’*^
Sir Syed, who hoped to create Anglo-Muslim Entente, became furious when he saw
Muslims taking active part in the Congress. He led a crusade against the Congress
by laying the foundation of the Annual Muslim Educational Conference in 1886
which held simultaneous sittings with the Congress in 1887.^^^ He told his co-reli¬
gionists, “If you accept that the country should groan under the Bengali rule and
its people lick the Bengali shoes, then in the name of God jump into the train, ‘sit-
down and be off to Madras, be off to Madras,'®® where the third session of the
Congress was to be held”. Badruddin Tyabji who presided over the Congress session
at Madras was also approached by Sir Syed and Amir Ali not to preside over the
Congre.ss but Tyabji refused to accept the suggestion and wrote to Amir Ali that
for Muslims “the proper course is to join the Congress”.'®' Tyabji expressed
surprise over the attitude of these Muslim leaders and wrote : “It does seem to me
to be a great pity that on matter affecting India as a whole any section of the
Mussalman Community should keep aloof from the Hindus and thus retard the
national progress of India as a whole.'®® But Sir Syed, who was a little insane on
the subject of the Congress,'®" with the assistance of Principal Beck and Raja Shiva
Prasad, founded the Indian United Patriotic Association in It 88'®^ as a counterblast
to the Congress.'®® The aim of the association was to show that the whole of India
was not with the Congress.'®® The association enjoyed the sympathy of the fifty-two
Muslirn organisations spread all over India. Some of these organisations even passed
rules to expel those Muslims from their rank who either belonged to the Congress
or were in any way sympathetic to its aspirations.'®"

The United Patriotic Association, which Sir Syed had establi!>hed to work as a
bulwark against the Congress and to dislodge the Congress session proposed to be
held at Allahabad in 1888, failed to accomplish the desired task'®' and the number
of delegates rose to 1348 including 222 Muslims at the Allahabad session.'®' Never¬
theless Sir Syed and his followers continued their crusade against the Congress and
to clog the Congress movement he convened a meeting at Aligarh on December 30,
1893 and with Beck’s support established the Mohammedan Anglo Oriental Defence
Association of Upper India which was to be an organisation having only Muslims
and Britons as members. The main objects of this new association were to protect
the political rights of the Muslims, keep them away from political agitation and to
help measures that would strengthen British Rule in India.'®® But even this associa¬
tion could not succeed in preventing the Muslims from joining the Congress. With
Sir Syed’s death in 1898 and Beck’s death in 1899 the Association the sickly child of

Indian Nationalism and Asia

Sir Syed's old age .expired in 1900 but the seed of communalism which had

been sown was to sprout six years later in the form of the Muslim League.^*'*

The supporters of Congress and the Hindu Press attacked Sir Syed for his anti-
Congress attitude. Henry Cotton held that Sir Syed had an acute sense of political
opportunism and he was opposed to Congress because he was made a K.C.S.I.^"'
The Indian Mirror called Sir Syed “a tool in the hands of our enemies"^”^ Lala Laj-
pat Rai in his series of open letters to Sir Syed attributed Syed’s hostility to the
Congress as his Official Khusamad.'^’’

Beyond doubt. Sir Syed succeeded in persuading the bulk of Muslims to stay
aloof from the Congress. But it would be wrong to associate with the observation
that after Syed’s lectures at Lucknow and Meerut on December 28, 1887 and March
16,1888 respectively no Mussulman of note joined the Congress except one or
two.''"'Hall/ Malik was not accurate in saying that R.M. Sayani and Badruddin
Tyabji failed to persuade their co-religionists to join the Congress.’""

It would be incorrect to say that Muslims, as a body, were opposed to the
Congress. In the Congress of 1886 there were 33 Muslim delegates. '"*’ Inspite of the
constant elftirts to prevent Muslims from joining Congress, 79 Muslim delegates
atlended the Madras session in 1887.-“’ The number of Muslim delegates rose to
222 at Allahabcd session of the Congress in 1888, and to 254 at th e Borr^ay ses^n
in 1889.”” Bui the Hindu Muslim riots that occured in the various parts of India
increased the gulf between the two communities and the Congress had to take steps
to persuade the Muslims to join the Congress. Only 65 Mus lim delegates attended
the Congress se.ssion in 1893 and many of them claimed exemption from the pay¬
ment of delegation fee as well as the messing charge on the plea that they were
religious preachers.-"" The position at the eleventh session of the Congress held at
Poona in yj95 did not improve and there were only J[9 Muslims out of 1584
delegates.-"'

To impress upon the Muslims that the Congress was a non-communal associa¬
tion and the muster Muslim support for the Congress movement, the Congress
leaders invited R.M. Sayani to preside over the twelfth session of the Congress held
at Calcutta in 1896. In his presidential address he refuted the allegation that the
Congress wanted to substitute Hindu for British rule and urged the Muslims to dis¬
card the policy of keeping aloof from the Congress, which was the only national
body.'"' Sayani’s appeal did not produce favourable result and the Moslem Chroni¬
cle accused Sayani of being their Master's Nevertheless, 311 Muslim dele¬

gates attended the Congress session at Lucknow in 1899 and formed 42 per cent of
the total delegates.”” But after 1899 the representation of Muslim delegates at Cong¬
ress sessions began to fall by big margin. In 1900 only 56 Muslims attended the
Lahore session of the Congress. In 1901 this number rose to 74, in 1903 the numbers
came to 9 and in 1905 only 20 Muslim delegates attended the Congress session held
at Benaras.-""

Thus, by the end of the 19th century two nationalisms were working in India.
One was Congress nationalism and the other was Muslim nationalism, although the
former enjoyed the support of the Muslims. On the whole, the prevalent attitude of
the Muslims tow-ards the Congress was not encouraging. Leaders like Surendra Nath
Bancrjeeand Gopal Krishna Gokhale regretted the attitude of the Muslims towards

Growth of Nationalism in India

the Congress. Surendra Nath Banerjee wrote : “The Mohammedan community,
under the leadership of Sir Syed Ahmed, had held aloof from the Congress. They
were working under the auspices of the Patriotic Association in opposition to the
National Movement.-GckhaJe’s regret was fully admitted : “Seventy millions of
Mohammedans were more or less hostile to national aspirations.”-’*’ In short, to¬
wards the end of the 19th century Muslims were beginning to look upon themselves
as composing one nation distinct from other Indians.

The All India Muslim League was established in 1906, which became the
centre of Muslim activities and which, more or less, monopolised the Muslim alle¬
giance Neverthelss, Congress nationalism usually characterised as Indian Nationa¬
lism still enjoyed the support of the Muslims. The Muslims belonging to the tradi¬
tion of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and to the umbrella of the Mu.slim League had diffe¬
rent modes of working out their salvation. Both aimed at the independence of the
country, though they differed from one another on so many important issues. How¬
ever, at times the two nationalisms co-operated together and before 1940 they had the
similar objectives with some minor differences, and, more or less, the political ideas
of Indian Muslims were identical with the rest of the Indians. Even after 1940, the
year in which the Muslim League Session of Lahore demanded the separate home¬
land for the Mu'^lims by passing the ^'Pakistan Resolution", the Muslim League and
the Congress were found working together. Moreover, the Muslim League joined tlie
Interim Government formed by Jawaharlal Nehru in 1946 But the ultimate result
was the vivisection of the nation and the birth of Pakistan in August 1947 when
India became independent. However, the partition of India and the birth of Pakistan
was merely an accident of History, Hence, the discussion of Indian Nationalism
would remain incomplete without the discussion about the Muslim League. And it
would be also wrong to say that the Congress Nationalism alone symbolised Indian
Nationalism. Moreover, Indian Nationalism, which was not a unified movement,
should always be the narrative of the Congress and the League Movements, which
at times co-operated with one another forgetting their differences.

Indian Nationolism and Asia

REFERENCES

*L.S S.O. Malley, The Indian Civil Service, (1931) pp. 220>2I.

“Sir John Strachcy, India, (London, 1911), p. 360.

“Maine to Dufferin, June 2, 1888, Dufferin tapers 38 (Reel 525).

‘‘Lytton to Sir E. Perry, April 18, 1877, Lytton Papers 518/2.

^Hurnc lo Ripon, March 14,1884, Ripon Papers, Add. MSS. 43616.

BBernard Houghton. The Revolt of the East, (1921) pp. 1-2

’Hamilton to Curzon, October 20, 1899, Curzon Papers, MSS. Eur. F. 111/158 No. 54.

“Morley, “British Democracy and Indian Government” Nineteenth Century and After, February
1911, pp. 189-200.

“Lewis Pelly (cdj The Views and Opinion of Brigadier General John Jacob, (1858) p. 2.

^"Harriet Manttneuu, Suggestions Towards the Future Government of India, (1858),
pp. 12-17.

’•See, E-M. Forester, A- Passage to India, (1924) pp. 50 51, and G.O. Trevelyan, Cawnpore
(1910) p. 36.

’“John Beams, Memoirs of a Bengal Civilian (1961), p. 132.

’“Fiancis G. Hutchins, The Illusion af Permanince: British Imperialism in India 1967) p- 118.
’’William H. Russell, My Diary in India in the year 1858-59 Vil. II (1860) p. 118-
’^Charles Dilke. Greater Britain. (1869) pp 437-517.

’'•IKnry Colton, New India or India in Transition (2nd ed. 1886) pp. .30-45.

’’Instruction, issued by Governor General Mayo (1869-72; lo the Lieutenant Governor of the
Punjab cited in S. Gopal, British Policy in India 1858-1905. (1965) p. 121.

’“Silaram, From sepoy to siibedar. Being the life and Adventures of a Native Officer of the Bengal
Army written and Related hy Himself (19\ 1) p. 311.

t''Report of the Second Indian National Congress held at Calcutta December. 1886 p. 106.

“"BB. Majumdar, History of Indian Social and Political Ideas '.from Ram Mohan to Dayananda,
(1967) p. 199.

“•S.A. Wolpert, Tilak and Gokhale, Revolution and Reform in the Making of the Modern India
1952) p. 297.

“’Seely, The Expansion of England (1883) pp. 226-28
““Sir John Strachcy, op. cit., pp. 1-5

-^Congress Presidential Addresses, First Scries, From the Foundation to the Silver Jubilee, 1885-
J9H, (P>35) pp. 6-7,

■-’•’Debcndra Nath Tagore, Autobiography of Maharishi Dehendra Nath Tagore, (1914),
p. 99.

“SN.Ci. Chandavarkar, TYje Spcer/io and fVritings of Sir Nurayan. G. Chandavarkar {[911)
pp 43-45-

“’Lula Lajpat Rai, The Arya SamaJ {19S2) p. 247.

““Fred B. Fisher, India's Silent Revolution, p. 85.

-'•* Speech of W.O. In \hc Report of the 13th Indian National Congress held at Bombay in

December, 1915 (1916), p- 112.

“"Speech of Padam Raj Jain, in the Report of the Thirty-Three Indian National Congress held at
Delhi in 1918 (Delhi, Reception Committee, 1919) pp. 128-29.

“'G-K. Gokhale, Speeches of the Honourable G K, Gokhale, (1st ed). p. 182.

^-Report of the First Indian National Congress held in 1885, p. 26.

““Dadabhai Naoroji, Speeches and Writings (n d.) p. 223

“’G.P. Pradhan and A.K. Bhagwat, Lokamanya Tilak (1958) p. 72

®“G.S. Iyer, Some Economic Aspects of British Rule in India, (1903) p. 9.

36,V, m; India, Calcutta, August 12, 1902.

“’Naoroji, Proverty and un-British Rule in India (1901) p. 1.

““R C. Dutt, Economic History of India-Early British Rule. (1901) p. I.

^^Congress Presidential Addresses First Series, p. 693-
Indu Prakash, May 5, 1879.

*’J.C. Bagal, History of Indian Association 1876-1951 (1952) p. 41.

Growth of Nationalism in India

*®C.L. Parekh, (cd) Naoroji, Essays, Speeches and Writings (1887) pp. 29-31.

**R.C. Dull, Speeches and Papers on Indian Questions, 1901 and 1902 (1904) pp. 21-48
**R.C. Dutt, Economic History of India-Early British Rule p. Xlll
**Cited in Bipin Chandra, The Rise and Growth of Economic Nationalism in India p. 504.
48Naoroji. Speeches and Writings, op. cit p. 671.

*’G.V. Joshi, Writings and Speeches, (1912) p. 70.

Tribune, January 5, 1887.

*®Cited in Anil Seal, The Emergence of Indian Nationalism (1968) p.p. 133-34.

Ramsay Mac Donald, The Awakening of India (1910) p. 124-25.

^^Congres.s Presidential address. First Series, p- 252.

Report of the Thirteenth Indian National Congress, 1897, p. 15.

®®Christinc E. Dobbin (cd) Basic Documents in the Development of Modern India and Pakistan
1835-1947 p. 25.

®*Henry Colton, New India or India in Transition, p. 108.

®®Rabindra Nath Tagore, Crisis in Civilisation, p. 2

®®0itoted in B.N. Pandey, The Break-up of British India p. 23

’’’R.C. Majumdar, History of Freedom Movement in India, Vol. 1 p. 327.

^“J.L. Nehru, The Discovery of India (1956) p. 392.

^’•>The Tribune, December 18, 1837,

^"Alexander, J. Arbuth-not (ed) Major-General Sir Thomas Munro-Selvctions from His Minutes
and other Ojficial Writings. Vol. II (1881) p. 2^8.

®*T.E- Cole Brooke, Life of the Honourable Mountstuart Elphlnstone, Vol. II (1884), p. 165.
®’Sisir Kumar Mitra, Resurgent India, p. 193.
t^Hbid, p. 154.

®*Bipin Chandra Pal, Memories of My Life and Times, Vol- 1, (1932), p, 252.

®®1C.K- Dana, Renaissance, Nationalism and Social Changes in Modern India, p. 5.

«®Bipin Chandra Pal, M, moru s of My Life and Times, Vol. I, P. 226.

®^Aurobindo Ghosh. Bankim, Tilak, Dayananda (1940) p. 9.

®®Ram Bilas Sharma, Bhartendu Harish Chandra, pp. 24 25.

®®Citcd in Sisir Kumar Miira, op. cit. p, 40.

’®R.C. Majumdar, History of Freedom Movement in India, Vol- I, pp. 292-
’^K.K. Datla, op. cit., p. 2.

’“C-F. Andrews, The Renaissance of India, (1912), p. 11.

’®J,C. Gosh (ed). The English Works of Ram Mohan Roy, (1906) pp. 929-30.

’‘Mary Carpenter, The Last Days in England of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, pp. 57-59.

’®Cited in Sisir Kumar Miira, op. cit., p. 122.

’fi/Wd, pp. 131-32.

’’Some Arya Samajisis, The Arya Samaj, p. 21.

’®Lajpal Rai, The Arya Samaj, pp. 254-57.

’sflawa Chhajju Singh, The Teachings of the Arya Samaj (1903), p. 102.

“®Suraj Bhan, Dayananda; His Life and Work (1956), p. 145-46.

*‘Har Bilas Sarda, Life of Dayanada Saraswati (1946), p. Cxxii.

®-B.C. Pal, Memories of My Life and Times Vol. I. pp- 310-14.

8®Ram Krishan : Prophet of New India (abridged from “The Gospel of Sri Ram Krishna" and
translated into English by Swami Nikhila Nanda, (1948), pp. 61-62.

B*Andrews and Mookerjee, The Rhe and Growth of Congress in India 1832-1920 p. 79.
^^Vivekananda Centenery Volume 1963, p. 523.

®«R.G. Pradhan, India's Struggle for Swaraj (1930), p. 60,

®’H.S. Olcott, The Peril of Indian Yauth (1916), pp. 3-6.

®®B.C. Pal, Memories of My Life and Times, Vol. 1, p. 425.

®9Valentine Chirol, Indian Unrest, (1910), pp- 28-29.

•®See Charles, H- Heimsath. Indian Nationalism and Hindu Social Reform 1964.

•‘Surendra Nath Banerjee, A Nation in Making, Being the Reminiscences of Fifty Years of
Public Life, (1965). p. 63.

*®A,0. Hume, The Star in the East, or the Bengal National League, (1886), p. 6.

Indian Nationalism and Asia

'•'•’W.S. Bunt, India under Ripon, A Private Diary, (1909), p. 216-
'■•^Lucicn Wolf, Life of the First Marquess of Ripon, Vol. II, p- 128.

'»sr/ie Times, September 3, 1883, October 1, 1883, Englishman-, May 2, 1883-
‘•'“Surendra Nath Banerjee A. Nation in Making, p. 86.

®^Jogcshwar Witter (ed) Raja Rajendralal Mitra's Speeches, (1892), p. 25-

““B.B. Majumdar, Indian Political Associations and Reforms of Legislature 1818-1917,

®>'Andrews and Mookerjee, op. cit. p. 6, 1966, p. 30-32.

Bengal liarkani, November 18, 1851.

Andrews and Mookerjee, op. cit. p. 62.

'"-r/jc' Amritu Bazar Patrika, November 10, 1870.

•"•‘J C. Bagal, op. cit. pp. 7-8.

’"'Cliailes H. Hemisath, op. cit. p. 64.

w<rhe Englishman, cited in J.C. Bagal, op. cit., p. 10.

^"'•Siiiendia Nath Banerjee, A Nation in Making, op. cit., pp. 42-44.

^"'A.C. Majumdar, Indian National Evolution, (1917), p. 40.

Bagal, op. cit pp. 80-88.

'^“'A.C. Majumdar, op. cit., p. 6.

Indian Mirror, February 17, 1883-
il'H.P. Mody, Sir, Plteroz Shah Mehta, Vol. I, pp. 166-68.

t'-The Quarterly Journal of the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha, New sciics. No. I, April, 1916, p. 3.
•I’l’aiiahhi Sitaramayya, The History of the Indian National Congress Vol. I, 1935 p. 10.

•"AC. Majumdar, op. cit, p. 42.

"■'’I’altabhi Sitaramayya, op, cit. Vol. I. p. 11.

^^^Indian Spectator, December 21, 1884.

• •"/’/k’ Indian Review, December 1905, p. 828
"*Ji>iirnal of Indian History, Vol. XXXVI, p. 172.

""B L. Grover, “The Genesis of the Indian National Congre.ss” y<w««/o//«<//«« History,
[December I%3, Vol XII, p. 610

'“'•F.M. Dc Mello, The Indian National Congress, (1934), p. 2
'-'W. Wedderbuin, Allan Octavian Hume, p. 66.

‘-■’A C. Majumdar, op cit. p. 46.

'■•“Wcdderbiirn, op. cit. p. 52.

'"'Cited in G.A- Natesan (ed) Indian Politics, (1898). pp. VlI-VIII.

'-•’S.K. KatclifTc, Sir W. Wedderhurn and the Indian Social Reform Movement, (1923), p. 60,

1 ''>Wcddcrbiirn, op. cit , p. 77.

' -"(.'liii.stine Dobbin, op. cit, p, 38.

'•'"Annie Besant. How India Wrought for Freedom (1915), p. 15.

'-’"B.B. Majumdar, and B.P. Majumdar, Co/f^'ress onrf Oi/y,'r«.wnen in the Pre-Candhian Era
lSS.-i.l9I7, (1967) pp. 3-4

""'Ciied in Andrews and Mookerjee, op. cit, p, 84-
''"Wedderhurn, op. cit, p. 53
'"-^-Ibid, p. 65,

Report of the Second Indian National Congress, 1886, p. 53.

'®'B L. Grover, A Documentary Study of British Policy towards Indian Nationalism 1885-1909,
p 42

'®'’B.C. Pal. The National Congress, (1887), p. 5.

''‘«H Whiichead, Indian Problems in Religion, Education and Politics, (1924), p. 217.

'®’Lord Dufferin, Speeches Delivered in India 1884 88. (1890),pp, 237-44.

"•"A-C. Majumdar, op. cit. pp. 80-87.

""'B.L. Grover, A Documentary Study of British Policy towards Indian Nationalism, p. 206.
'■•"Cited in C.H. Phillips (ed) The Evolution of India and Pakistan. Selected Documents 1858-
1947, p 145.

'"Paitabhi Sitaramayya, Vol. I. op. cit., p. 5.

'^-Charles H. Heimsath, op. cit. pp. 132-33.

•*®Sir Renigald Coupland, India—A Restatement ( 1945) pp. 91-92.

Growth of Nationalism in India

^*^Robert Bruce T. McCulIy, English Education and the Origin of Indian Nationalism pp. 177.
Ali, “A cry from the Indian Mohammrdans”, Nineteenth Century Vol. XII, July-Dcccni-
ber, 1882, p.201.

R. Metcalf, The Aftermath of Revolt (1965) pp. 298-304.

’^^VV-C. Smith, Modern Islam in India (1943) p. 163.

Hunter, Indian Mussalmans, Are they bound in conscunce to rise against the Queen?
(1871) pp. 159*72.

• '”r. Morrison, “Mohammedan Movements” in J. Cummings (ed) Political India (1932) p. 88.

B, M.ijumdar, History of Indian Political Associations, p. 221.

'■■’Jyolish Chandra Das Gupta, A National Riography for India, (1911) p. 89.

'^^Thacker's Directory for Bengal, North western Provinces for IH65, (1865) p. 214.

Quarter century of the Molnmmedan Literacy Society of Caicutta (1899).

' '^The Rides and Objects of the National Mohammedan Association with a list of the members
(1882^ p. 5.

B. M.ijumdar, History of Indian Political Associations, p. 225.

'•'*Rafia Zakaria, Rise of Muslims in Indian Politics, An Analysis of Developments from IS58 to
1906. p. 39

’ ■"Correspondence on the subject of the Education of the Mohammedan Community in British
India and their Employment in the public service generally, selectlon^ from the record;, of the
Ciovernm'nt of India. No- CCV, Home Department serial No 2, Calcutta, 1886, Part 3,
pp. 242-44.

' Sharan, The Imperial Legislative Council of liUia, {1961) pp. 73-74.

' ■'®/7;e Statesman, December 19, 1886.

’®"Ram Gopal, Indian Muslims. A Political History, (1858-1947).

''’‘The Calcutta Review, July. 1889, Vol LXXXIX pp. IX-XI.

’•’William 'r. de Baiy (cd) Sources of Indian Tradition, (1958) pp. 744 45- *

'•’(I'.F.I. Graham, The Life and ssoik of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, (1909) p. 128.

'•^L.S.S-O ’ Mallgy (ed) Modern India and the Wi.st. A Study of the Interaction of their Civilisa¬
tion, pp. 389 416

'•■’’S. Abid Husain. The Destiny of Indian Muslims- p. 28

’’‘••Sir Sved Ahmed Khan The Present State of Indian Politics, (1888) pp- 27-28-
“’^Citcd in G.A. Natesan (cd) Eminent Mussalmans, (n.d.) p. 32.
i« 877 ,£, Pionear, January 11, 1888.

Gregory,‘'Loyalty of the Indian Mussalmans", Nimteenth Century, DcccHibci 1886,

pp. 886-900.

'" 'Sunderlal, A Study oj the Hindu-Mitslim Problem in India pp 119-20.

’’’A. Meh'a and A. Paiwardhan. The Communal Triangle in India (2nd ed, 1942) pp. 57-61-
’’“Theodore Beck, "In what will it End" The Pioneer Moil. May 16, 1888-
””R.P. Masani, Dadahhai Naoroji: The Grand Old Man of India (1939) p. 303.

'^^H.E.M James, “Reflections on the Way Home” National Review. November, 1893. pp 342 46
’’•'‘Khalt'd B. Sayeed, Pakistan, The Formative Phase 1857-1948. p. 21.

’"*B.C. Pal, Momories of My I if - and Times. Vol. 1, p. 417.

Abid Husain, op. cit. pp. 29-30.

’’“Cited in Witkins, Indian National Congress, pp. 67-93-

”®Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. The Pre.sent State of Indian Politics, p. 10.

’Sn/ft/V/, p. 18.

p. ].

’““H.C-E. Zacharias, Renascent India, p. 120.

^“■’’Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, op. cit pp, 11-12.

’“'Tyabji to Amir Ali, December 3, 1887, Tyahjt Papers.

"^'Source Material for a History of the Freedom Movement in India (collected fiom Bombay
Government Records) Vol. IJ, pp. 67-69.

'*®Hume’s statement, ched in the Pioneer, November 7, 1888.

’“’Graham, op. cit. p. 273.

’““H.C.E- Zacharias,op. cit. p 120.

Indian Nationalism and Asia

'WRajendra Prasad, India Divided, (1946) pp. 103-4.

Indian Mirror, October 16, 1888.

Pal, Memories of My Life and Times, Vol. II. p- 88.

Majumdarand B.P. Majumdar. op. cit. pp. 87-88.

*®“R.C. Majumdar, History of Freedom Movement in India, Vol. p. 428.

^®*S. Abid. Husain, op. nV.. p. 39.

’•'’’James Samuelson. India Past and Present, p. 320.

Indian Mirror, January 25, 1888.

mphc Tribune, October 27, November 17, December 5, and 19, 1888.

‘••Mohimmad Noman, Muslim India : Rise and Growth of the Ail India Muslim League,
(1942) p 40.

’••Hafeez Malik, Moslem Nationalism in India and Pakistan, (1963) p. 196.

"••Haridas Mukerjce and Uma Mukerjee, The Growth of Nationalhmin India 1857-1905,
(1957) p. 161.

Majumdar, “The Congress and the Moslems” The Quarterly Review of Historical
Studies, Vol. No. 2, 1965-66.

of the Fifth Indian National Congress, 1889, pp. 39.115.

•‘’•‘Swami Shradhanand, Inside Congress, pp, 30-31.

'-''^Report of the Eleventh Indian National Congress, 1895, p. 15.

Report of the Twelfth Indian National Congress, 1896, pp. 1-39.

^•“Editorials in the Moslem Chronicle, January 30, February 20, 1897.

Majumdar and B.P. Majumdar, op, cit. pp. 90-94.

2®“P.C. Ghosh, Indian National Congress p. 23.

“••Surendra Nath Banerjee, 4 Nation in Making, p. 108-

2'®Joha S. Hoyland, Gopal Krishan Gokhale: His Life and Speeches, (1933), p. 160.

CHAPTER ll

INDIAN NATIONALISM AND EMERGENCE OF
ASIAN CONSCIOUSNESS

The Indian National Movement was not an isolated development. Growth of
nationalism in India transformed the very outlook of the Indian people and there¬
fore, politically awakened India could not remain in an ivory tower isolated from the
main current of world events and especially from the developments in the Asian
Continent in which India had played a dominant role since the dawn of human
history. Though as a subject country all the thought and energy of nationalist India
were directed towards the achiex ement of its own freedom, the Indian National
Movement evinced keen interest in the neighbouring Asian countries and developed
an Asian consciousness or the spirit of fellow-feeling with Asian nations. Leaders of
Nationalist India impressed upon the people to get into the habit of looking at
India as a part of the wide Asian World. This strong Asian-bias became a dominant
feature of the outlook of the Nationalist India and from the very inception closer
collaboration with fellovv-Asians became one of the objectives of the movement
(Indian National Movement).* A sense of fellow-feeling with the Asian nations
became so deeply coveted an idea with the nationalist leaders that one of the
remarkable developments in India in the 20th century has been the growth of what,
for want of a better term, may be described as Asian Consciousness.^

As most of the Asian countries were under the domination of Western
powers and were thus, comrades-in-hondage. Nationalist India realised that the basic
problem of India and Asia was the same. In all the countries of Asia some son of
freedom struggle was going on and at most places it was against the western domi¬
nation Leaders of Nationalist India realised that India’s struggle for freedom was
a part of the freedom struggles going on in Asia, Imbued, thus, with a sense of
Asian Consciousness and moved by a motive to forge Asian solidarity the Indian
National Movement emphasised the need of closer collaboration among the national
movements of Asia for eliminating the common enemy i.e.. Western imperialism,
Leaders of Nationalist India were eager to derive benefit from the freedom struggles
of all Asian countries and to lend their support to the similarly placed nations of
the continent. They became anxious to co-ordinate Indian struggle for freedom with
the freedom struggles of the other Asian nations, to establish fraternal relations
with the Asian people and to share the feeling of joy and sorrow with fellow Asians.
Since Asia was regarded as whitemen's burden and a continent of fallen race the
Indian leaders did not miss any opportunity to assert Asia’s special role in world
politics and to place Asia on the map of the world. Nationalist India drew up plans

Indian Nationalism and Asia

often for regional integration in Asia and urged the Asiatic nations to co-operate
with India in the task to give a concrete shape to these schemes.

Indian attempts for establishing close collaboration with Asian nations were
the inevitable re»ults of the political, strategic, geographical and cultural factors.
Politically, India occupied the most vital point in the Western imperial system.
India was the pivot of British Empire, and the brightest Jewel in the imperial diadem.^
Strategic and geographical significance of India for the British Empire was rightly
conceived by Lord Curzon who observed :

“India is hke a fortress with the vast moat of the sea on two of her faces and
with mountains for her walls on the remainder; but beyond these walls, which
are sometimes by no means of insuperable height and admit of being easily
pf iifirated, extends a glacis of varying breadth and dimension. We do not
want to occupy it, but we also can not alford to see it occupied by our foes.
Wc are quite content to let it remain in the hands of our allies and friends, but
if rival and unfriendly influences creep into it and lodge themselves right under
our walls, we are compelled to intervene because a danger would thereby grow
up that would one day menace our security. That is the secret of the whole
position in Arabia, Pcisia, Afghanistan, Tibet, and as far eastwards as Siam.
He would be a short-sighted commander who merely manned his ramparts in
India and did not look beyond”.'^

The need to protect British India Empire had cost the freedom of a large
number of Asian countries. Protection of Indian Empire was the most important
motive behind British aggression in Persia, Mesopotamia, Afghanistan, Tibet,
Burma .and Egypt. British India constituted the main base which sustained British
impeliaJi.sm in Asia. Britain used India as a “base of the British Empire in the
Fast” and pursued imperialistic policies in Asia on the strength of the Indian army
which was largely maintained out of India’s money.® In its critical battles against
nationalist mo\ements in Asia the British used India as the recruiting ground
and as the base of military operations for suppressing nationalist movements in
Asia.

Politic;;! and national awakening of India made Indians conscious of the fact
that India was the hub of the British imperialism in Asia and instilled in them a
guilt nui^ciousness for being responsible for the enslavement of other Asian count¬
ries. Maiil.u a Ahul Kalam Azad, the president of the extraordinary session of the
Indian Naiioiuil Congress held in 1923, very significantly pointed out that the desire
lo pcrpeui.ite the .slavery of India had made the possession of Suez Canal essential
for file British and ti> keep a stronghold on India the freedom of Arabia was sacri-
liced. He further maintained that India had been responsible for the slavery of the
Middle Eastern Countries, So he urged the Indians to make a common cause with
the Universal Struggle of Eastern rations to shake oflF fetters of slavery.® In the
Congress against Imperialism held at Brussels in February 1927 Jawahar Lai Nehru
hlnuelf admitted ih.'it other lands had sulfercd and were suffering still on account of
India because British lused Indian troops to crush the nationalist uprisings of these
lands ’ This realisation opened up a sympathetic chord in the hearts of the nation¬
alist leaders for the sufferings of the people of these countries fighting for indepen¬
dence against the dead weight of the Western imperialism under which most of the

Indian Nationalism and Emergence of Asian Consciousness

Asian countries were groaning. These leaders believed that India held the remedy of
imperialism and that once India became free, the whole edifice of Western imperia¬
lism in Asia would collapse like a house of cards. To them free India was the best
and surest guarantee of a free Asia Mahatma Gandhi very aptly declared :

“India was the key to the exploitation of the Asiatic and other non European
races of the Earth. She is held under bondage not merely for the sake of her
own exploitation but that of her neighbours near and distant”.** India’s free¬
dom, Gandhi believed, would be the first death blow to the “insolent
exploitation of the nations of Asia and Africa”.'* Keeping in view the share
India had contributed in purchasing the freedom of the Asiatic and African
nations ; “My ambition is much higher than independence. Through the deli¬
verance of India, I seek to deliver the so-called weaker races of the earth from
the crushing heels of Western exploitation”.^** This assumption gave birth to a
passionate concern in India for the freedom of Asian countries and a desire to
live in friendly ties with them.

Geography had always been a compelling factor in the political life of a nation
and geographically India had been the meeting point of whole of Asia Jawahar Lai
Nehru realised this geographical importance of India and wrote:

“It is fitting that India should play her role in this new phase of Asian develop¬
ment. Apart from the fact that India herself is emerging into freedom and
independence, she is the natural centre and focal point of the many forces at
work in Asia. Geography is a compelling factor, and geographically she is so
situated as to be the meeting point of Western and Northern and Eastern and
South-East Asia. Because of this, the history of India is long history of her
relations with the other countries of Asia”,'*

On another occasion Nehru observed :

“India is very curiously placed in Asia and her history has been governed a
great deal by the geographical factor plus other factors. Whichever problem in
Asia you may take up, some-how or other India comes into the picture.
Whether you think in terms of China or the Middle East or South East Asia,
India immediately comes into the picture”.^" This geographical privilege which
India alone enjoyed in Asia actuated the Indian leaders to look to the fellow
Asian countries.

If geographically India constituted the centre of Asia she was culturally the
pivot round which the other cultural systems of the continent revolved. Indians
were so placed that a part of their population, the Muslims hud cultural affinity
with the countries in the West Asia. The Hindus, who formed the bulk of the
Indian population, were culturally closely associated with the countries lying in the
east of the continent. This cultural uniqueness of India, Dr. M A. Ansari rightly
pointed out in his presidential address for the Indian National Congress in 1927,
made Indian leaders the champion of Asian interests and persuaded them to have
close contacts with the Aslan nations."*

India’s oneness with Asian nations was the legacy of history which recorded
lively contacts between India and her Asiatic neighbours. Historical and archeolo¬
gical researches done by both the western and eastern scholars made Indians aware
of their past in which they had established close cultural contacts with the Asian

Indian Nationalism and Asia

countries and had influenced the life, thought, art, architecture, culture and social
and political life of the countries beyond geographical boundaries.^^ This recovery
of the past cultural bonds of Asia with a common origin in India gave India a sense
of kinship and fellow feeling with the rest of Asia and their own significance as a
future Asian power.

Since India was the most politically conscious country among the enslaved
nations of Asia; smaller neighbours turned to India for encouragement and support
and it was equally natural for the Indian people to take a keen interest in their
struggle for independence. All the Asian countries were comrades-in bondage engag¬
ed in a war against the imperialist policies of the European powers who followed
similar policies throughout Asia in the wake of nationalist uprisings and were
adamant to suppress these nationalist movements at any and every cost because the
success or failure of any one was bound to affect the fortunes of all the colonial
peoples. The Indian leadership was wise enough to realise that the basic problem
of India and Asia was one and the same. Indian leaders felt a genuine sympathy for
the nations placed under the Western domination.

The nature and actual working of the imperialist government in all the colonial
countries had, in a sense, unified the subject people for achieving national freedom.
The techniques and tricks of imperialist powers, their ruthless suppression of free¬
dom movement and economic exploitation had been common throughout the
colonial world. People exploited and ruled by similar type of powers naturally lelt
interested in one another’s destiny. Thus in response to European colonialism Asian
solidarity of suffering was bound to emerge K.M. Panikkar held the view that
the sense of Asianism is exclusively the counterpart of the solidarity of European
feeling.'” Being herself a victim of Western imperialism India attempted to forge
solidarity of the oppressed nations of Asia. Thus, the aim of eliminating Western
imperialism by concerted efforts was the practical foundation of Asian solidarity.
Indian attempts for Asian solidarity were animated by a spirit of common conscio¬
usness and reaction against the European domination.

But it must not be ignored that Indian attempts for clo.se collaboration among
the nations of Asia were also the outcome of the Jong tradiiion of India’s spec ui
role in the history of the Asian continent. Since time immemorial India had played
a significant role in Asia and politically awakened India by taking interests in the
Asian countries was simply fulfilling the call of India’s historical tradiiion. Further
more, Indians had settled in several countries of Asia. To safeguard their interests
and to avert clash between the Indian settlers and the citizens of those Asian count¬
ries Nationalist India emphasised the need of friendly relations between India and
these Asian countries.

It was in the 20th century that Asianism became a marked feature of the
outlook of the Indian National Movement. But, even in the 19th century Indian
nationalists have developed Asian consciousness and had evinced interest in the
affairs of the fellow Asians.

Even before the establishment of the Indian National Congress in 1885 the
Indians had developed the spirit of oneness with Asian people. At a time when
Western imperialism had reached its high-watermark and Asia was regarded as
whitemen's burden, Keshab Chandra Sen, a Brahmo Samoj lead^f and a brilliant

Indian Nationalism and Emergence of Asian Consciousness

product of the 19th century Indian Renaissance, spoke of Asia and impressed upon
the people of India that they must get into the habit of looking at India as a part
of the wide Asian world. In an age when the leading personality like Bankim
Chandra Chatferjee, who was a “prophet”^^ of Indian cultural renaissance, thought
in terms of Bengal alone, and seldom took into consideration the larger problem of
promoting Indian nationalism.’** Hem Chandra Banerjee who, as B.C. Pal wrote,
“was our special favourite”,^* lamenting the fate of India, expressed surprise over
the independence of China and Burma and uncivilised Japan,the first big figure
from the Indian world of learning who had the credit of having an Asia wide
outlook was Keshab Chandra S en. Even Ram Mohan Roy, whom Rabindra Nath
Tagore regarded as Bharat Pathik,^^ spoke in terms of either Indian culture ar
jvorld culture, but the idea of Asian unity, which came to the fore again in the
writings of Rabi ndra Nath Tagore and A nanda Co omaraswumy, was first suggested^
by Keshab Chandra Sen. ’^ Long before the Japanese artlsT Okakura Kakuzo pro¬
claimed that “Asia is one’'“*’ and mose than a decade before Swami Vivekananda,
the father of Modern Indian Nationalism,-’ declared the spiritual unity of Asia,-'’
Keshab Chandra Sen emphatically asserted the unity of Asia and Asian culture. In |
his lecture on Asia's Message to Europe delivered in 1883 Keshab Chandra Sen I
proudly proclaimed :

“I am R child of Asia. Her sorrows are my sorrows, he^ joys are my joys.
From one end of Asia to another, I boast of a vast home a wide nationality,
an extended kinship ... To me the dust of Asia is far more precious than gold
and silver’’.-®

Asia, which lay prostrate before the mighty material progress of the West in
the 29th century, was considered to be a continent inhabited by an inferior race. To
place Asia on the cultural map of the world, to inject a sense of self-respect and
self-confidence among the people of Asia and to explain the role Asia had played
in the spiritual progress of the mankind, the restless soul of Keshab Chandra Sen
spoke of the splendour and spiritual heritage of Asia and his thoughts were preg¬
nant \\ jfh Pan-Asiatic sentiments. He was moved to see the condition of the Asiatic
people but he did not believe that the West was, and always has been, superior to
the Orient. To disprove this notion Keshab Chandra Sen claimed Jesus Christ as an
Asiatic and emphatically asserted the Asiatic origin of Christian civilisation.-' In
order to stimulate self-pride among the Asian people and to remove the notion of
inherent inferiority of the Asiatics, Sen proclaimed that Christ was the product of
Asia. In this lecture on “Jesus Christ—Asia and Europe” delivered inl8a6at
Calcutta, he declared that Jesus Christ was an Asian and Christianity owed its birth
to Asia. Continuing he stated :

“Christianity was founded and developed by Asiatics, and in Asia. Jesus is akin
to my oriental habits of thought and feeling”."’’ Claiming Jesus Christ as an
Asiatic Sen further observed, “An Asiatic can read the imageries and the
allegories of the Gospel, its description of natural sceneries, of customs and
manners, with greater interest, and a fuller perception of their force and beauty,
than Europeans can’’.^®

By claiming Christ as an Asiatic he referred to the glorious cultural heritage of
Asia. “In Christ”, he further remarked, “we see not only the exaltedness of huma-

Indian Nationalism and Asia

nity but also the grandeur of which Asiatic nature is susceptible”.™ In an age when
Europeans regarded the Asiatics as an inferior race Keshab Chandra Sen emphasi¬
sed the equality between the Europeans and the Asiatics. He said :

“The Universe is the cathedral, nature the high priest, and every man has
access to his Father—an illiterate rustic or a profound philosopher, a throned
monarch or a ragged clown, a European or an Indian”.”^

Pan-Asianism had so deeply crept into his thought that Keshab Chandra felt a
genuine love and sympathy for the fellow Asian people. In one of his lectures Sen
appealed to the conscience of Europe for the well being of China. He urged the
British Government in 1870 to “abolish that inquitious opium traffic which kills
thousands of the poor Chinese people”.™ This love for China manifested in the
speeches of Keshab Chandra, was the vivid expression of his Asian consciousness
and his sense of comradeship with a fellow Asian people.

This great and brilliant representative of the Indian renaissance was moved to
tears to see the complete domination of Europe on Asia. His resentment over the
misfortune of the Asiatics under Western domination and his love and sincere
sympathy for the nations of Asia groaning under the iron heels of imperialism found
vent in hi.s pan-Asiatic sentiments. Expressing his heartfelt sympathy for the simi¬
larly-placed people of Asia Keshab Chandra Sen wrote :

“Whence this plaintive and mournful cry, which so profoundly distresses the
patriot’s breast ? It seems that a whole continent is writhing in agony beneath
the lash of oppression, and sending forth from the depths of its heart a deep
wail of woe. Who is it that weeps ? Do ye hear ? It is India that weeps, nay,
not India only; all Asia cries. Behold the sweet Angel of the East, into whose
beauty the ve^y colours of heaven seem to have been woven, the fair east, in
russet mantle clothed, lies prostrate, a bleeding prisoner ? Who can measure the
length and breadth, the height and depth of Asia’s sulTerings ? She has no
peace; she knows no consolation. And what is the burden of her complaint ?
The desperate onslaughts of Europe’s haughty civilisation, she says, have
brought sorrow into her heart, ignominy on her fair name, and death to her
cherished institutions. Alas ! Before the formidable artillery of Europe’s aggre¬
ssive civilisation, the scriptures and prophets, the language and literature of
the East, nay, her customs and manners, her .social and domestic institutions,
and her very industries have undergone a cruel slaughter. The rivers that flow
eastward and the rivers that flow westward arc crimson with Asiatic gore; yes,
with the best blood of oriental life’’.®*

This pathetic cry of the restless soul of Keshab Chandra Sen gave a pan-Asian
slant to the emerging national movement in India. However, his pan-Asianism was
not an aggressive doctrine directed against the West and did not aim at the creation
of an Asiatic bloc against Europe. By Asian unity he did not mean that Asia must
unite against the West. To him, pan-Asianism was a necessary step in the realisation
of international cooperation undone world. In order to establish one world and
harmony between the Asiatic and European people he asked the Asiatics to
co-operate with the west for that larger ideal. He prayed for an international
federation built on Christ’s atonement and he had a firm faith in the spiritual alli¬
ance between the East and West.

Indian Nationalism and Emergence of Asian Consciousness

In a lecture delivered in 1866 he boldly declared ;

“In Christ Europe and Asia, the East and West, may learn to find harmony
and unity.”®* He attempted to synthesise Hinduism, Islam and Christia¬
nity into and Indian National Church ®® This New Dispensation of Keshab
Chandra called for the harmonisation of all conflicting creeds and for the
fusion of the East and West. He urged Europe to enter into the heart of Asia
and Asia to enter into the mind of Europe and added “we instantly realise
within ourselves an European Asia and an Asiatic Europe, a commingle of
oriental and occidental ideas and principles.”®'’

On another occasion he asserted, “In uniting the Ea.st and the West, the Euro¬
pean and Asiatic faith and character, the Church of the New Dispensation works
faithfully upon the lines laid down by Christ himself, and only seeks to amalga¬
mate the Western and the Eastern Christianity. It is not a treaty of Christ and anti-
Christ that is proposed, but the reconciliation of all in Christ.”®' Thus, Keshab
Chandra’s cry for Asian unity in spiritual and cultural fields never stood in the way
of his cherished desire for international co-operation. Sen’s incessant attempts to
accompli.sh the fusion of the East and the West in spiritual field was highly appre¬
ciated by Lord Ronaldshay who very significantly observed :

“Keshab Chandra Sen, more perhaps than any other man, showed that the gulf
between Europe and Asia might be bridged without the sacrifice of of anything
fundamental in the race-genius and race-culture of either. He showed how East
and West might be complementary rather than antagonistic to one another.”®**
The pan-Asiatic sentiments expressed by the great and brilliant representative
of the 19th century Indian renaissance were imbibed by the Indian National Move¬
ment which gathered momentum with the establishment of the Indian National
Congress in 1885. In fact, Asianism as constituting a dominant feature of the Indian
outlook was the original contribution of Keshab Chandra Sen. In other words,
Ke.shab Chandra Sen was the prophet of pan-Asianism.

Some four years b efo re the formation of the Indian National Congress which
spearheaded the movement for Indian independence, Rabindra Nath Tagore, ntoved
by a spirit of Asian consciousness, protested against the inhuman opium trade of
the European merchants in China. In his article entitled “Death Traffic in China”
Tagore decried the export of opium from India to China. This “earliest so-
far-traced reference to Tagore’s interest in Asian alTairs”®” was very deep and
influenced the Indian nationalist thought in regard to the Asian problems. Even
before Tagore’s opposition to the opium traffic in China, The Amrita Bazar Patrika
in 1874 published an article entitled ‘‘The Chinese and the English”, in which it
mentioned in detail the injuries done to the Chinese by the English and concluded
by saying that the former were justified in regarding the latter people as “Satanic”. "*
The Indian National Congress also imbibed the spirit of Asianism generated
by the Indian Renaissance and the representatives of the Indian awakening Sym¬
pathy with a fellow Asian country was expressed in the very first session of the
Indian National Congress held in 1885. As a consequence of the third Anglo.
Burmese War Upper Burma was annexed to the Indian Empire by the British
Government. The Indian National Congress deprecated the annexation of Burma.
In his resolution moved at the Congress session Phiroz Shah Mehta regarded the

Indian Nationalism and Asia

annexation as unjust, immoral and unwise.^^ Beyond doubt, the fear of heavy taxa¬
tion was the ground of opposition to annexation, but behind the opposition to the
annexation was the sympathy of the Indian people for their neighbour. It was a
protest against the British aggressive or forward policy in Asia. In the Congress
session of 1891 Disnshaw Wacha referred to the forcible seizure of Upper Burma
and regarded the year of the annexation as the year of calamity for India. He fur¬
ther criticised the expansionist policy of the British Government beyond the eastern
frontier of India in obedience to the call of “pious Manchester for the sale of the
product of its spindles and looms.”*^ This policy, he feared, might soon bring the
Indian Government into clash with China which would bring disastrous conse¬
quences for India.^*

Indian Muslims, like their co-religionists elsewhere, were affected by the pan-
Islamic movement which began towards the end of the 19th centuryThe revival
of pan-Islamism in the last quarter of the 19th century under the able Stewardship
of Abdul Hamid II, the sultan of Turkey, who desired to forge united front of the
Muslim brotherhood to work as a bulwark against the Christian powers of Europe,
influenced the Indian Muslims and the Muslims of India were drawn closer to Tur¬
key with which they had sentimental, religious and cultural affdinity. Indian
Muslims, who were loyal to the sultan of Turkey as the religious and spiritual head
of the Muslims of the world, came in touch with the pan-Islamic activities of Abdul
Hamid II who established Press at Yeldiz from where notices and pamphlets on
pan-Islamism were published for circulation among the Indian Muslims.^''

Indian Muslims, under the influence of the pan Islamic movement, began to
take casual interest in the affairs of Turkey and other Muslim countries. On the
outbreak of hostilities between Turkey and the state of Servia in 1876 Abdul Latif,
at considerable risk to his official position, convened a monster meeting of the
Muslims ot Calcutta at the Townhall, presided over it and devised means for rais¬
ing funds in aid of the Turkish wounded as well as for the submission of a memo¬
rial on behalf of her Muslim subjects to Queen Victoria requesting her to extend
her help to the Sultan of Turkey. The movement was followed up by similar
demonstrations in other parts of India. The Turkish authorities in their official
correspondence regarded Abdul Latif as the recognised representative of Islam in
India.*® During the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-7^ both the Hindus and Muslims
of India united to express their sympathy for Turkey. This united demonstration of
sympathy tor Turkey surprised Anglo-Indians, who wanted to know the reasons
why Hindus were supporting the cause of a Muslim power. The Hindu newspapers
in their reply to the query of the Anglo-Indians frankly declared that the sympathy
of Hindus was in favour of Turkey primarily because Turkey was an Asian power.*^

The course of British foreign policy also added strength to the pan-Islamic
movement in India. Indian Muslims under the influence of the teachings of Sir Syed
Ahmed Khan were loyal to the British Government. But this scheme of Anglo-
Muslim co-operation got a rude shock in 1897 when the Sultan of Turkey was at
war with Greece. Hitherto Indian Muslims had firm faith that Britain would come to
the rescue of Turkey whenever it is needed, but the pro-Greek policy of the British
Government shattered this belief. Muslims in India, who were urged by their
leaders to remain loyal to the British Government, became critical of the latter.

Indian Nationalism and Emergence of Asian Consciousness

Britain came in for severe criticism for her pro-Greek attitude and Indian
Muslims demonstrated their enthusiasm and sympathy for the Sultan of Turkey
and sent innumerable letters congratulating the Sultan for Turkish victory in the
Greeco-Turkish War of 1897.'*“ On the Idul Fitr of 1898 a large number of Muslims
assembled at the Mosque in Regent’s Park in Delhi and after prayers and report
Professor Ishak prayed for the health of the Sultan and said “In no part of the
Moslem world and in no annals of Islamic history were the faithful ever gifted
with such an enlightened sovereign as the present one, who upholds the peace of
Europe and universal Moslem Unity’’.*** The demonstrative enthusiasm of the
Indian Muslims for the Sultan of Turkey and their severe condemnation of Britain
for her pro-Greek attitude in the Greeco-Turkish war in 1897 gave the authorities
in India cause for anxiety.®" Lord Hamilton, the Secretary of State, wrote to the
Viceroy, Lord Elgin, on July 30, 1897’’...

We have, however, a new element of intrigue and commotion introduced into
India by the Pan-lslamic Council in Constantinople and the close connection
which is being established between the Sultan and Indian Mohamedans’’.®*
The British were alarmed at the massive sympathy the Muslims in India
demonstrated for Turkey and the severe condemnation of the British policy ®“ The
year 1899 saw a significant land mark in the history of Pan-Islamism in India.
The British Government of India, having confirmed that the Nedvet-Ul-Ulema was

held in M..rch, I898 atKanpur,hassuflficientlyalertedagainstthespreadolPan-

Islamism in India-®'* Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, was perturbed to see the Muslims
drifting away from the camp of the British and expressed his disapproval of the
new attitude of the Muslims towards the British rulers because it posed a serious
threat to his novel plan of an “Anglo-Muslira alliance.’ ®‘

Needless to say that the Indian Muslim’s interest in Turkish affairs was largely
the result cf the common religious bond, that united the former with the latter.
It was a call of religion, but, behind this was also a latent feeling of oneness and
fellowship ’vilii an Asian country facing a perpetual danger of dismemberment by
western powers. The special feature in this respect was that the pan-lslamisra of
Indian Muslims was converted into pan-Orientalism by the Hindus who supported
the Muslims in their sympathy with Turkey.

At a lime when the Indian National Congress was evincing interest in the
Asian countries and the Muslims shared the joys and sorrows of the Turkish peo*
pie some of the brilliant sons of India, l.ke Vivekanand, added a new chapter to
the developing trend of Indian fellow feeling with Asian countries by the visits to
those countries. Viyeki.nanda, a great representative of the Indian Renaissance and
an ardent nationalist, vi^d Ja^an jn 18 93 and was much impressed by Japan and
her nationalism, On his return to India he advised the Indian students to visit
Japan and learn lessons from the Japanese people. He asked the Indian people to
look at what was being done in Japan and follow her example. The sight of things
prevailing in Japan at that time made Vivekananda unhappy when he compared it
with the backwardness of his own country. With great bitterness he condemned
.India’s tardiness, rebuked Indian students aiming at nothing higher than a clerk¬
ship and reprimanded Indian intellectuals for wasting their time and energy on the
“touchableness or untouchableness of this food or that’’.®® Vivekananda, like

Indian Nationalism and Asia

Keshab Chandra Sen and the Japanese artist Okakuro Kakuzo, unhesitatingly
proclaimed the spiritual unity of Asia}^

These visits of the neighbouring countries by Vivekananda revived the age old
lively contacts between India and the countries of Asia and prepared the way for
closer collaboration among the Asiatics. They did also the spade work for inter-
Asian contacts. “Such travels”, rightly observed by Werner Levi, “were undertaken
for various reasons, but they never lacked political significance, and eventually the
political motive became the most frequent and permanent”.”

The resolutions of the Indian National Congress expressing sympathy with the
Burmese people, the sorrow and resentment expressed by Keshab Chandra Sen on
the humiliating condition Asia was subjected to, the travels of Vivekananda to the
neighbour countries, the enthusiasm demonstrated by the Muslims at the time of
Greeco-Turkish was in 1897, the grave concern of Rabindra Nath Tagore and the
Indian Press on the deteriorating economic condition of China confirmed the growth
of Asian Consciousness among the Indian nationalists in the 19th century. Whereas
the 20th century witnessed the fruition of this spirit of oneness with Asian nations
developed in the 19th century.

Indian Nationalism and Emergence of Asian Consciousness

REFERENCES

^Sisir Gupta, India and Regional Integration in Asia (1864) p. 28.

^Bimal Prasad, ‘‘Indian Nationalism and Asian Consciousness 1920-47”, Studies in Asian
History (1969). p. 277.

®R.G. Pradhan, “Indian Affairs in England”, The Indian Review, October, 1907, p, 736.

‘Cited in J.C, Kundra. Indian Foreign Policy 1947-54 (1955) pp. 32-33'

®N.V. Sovani, “British Impact on India after 1850-57”. Cited in B.G. Gokhale, The Making of
the Indian Nation, p. 189.

^’The Indian Annual Register, 1923 Vol. 11, p. 193.

’G.H. Jansen, Afro-Asia and Non-Alignment p. 30.

^ Young India, February 3, 1927.

**R.K. Prabhu and U.R. Rao, The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi p. 89-
^®0uotcd in U.R- Rao, "Gandhiji on Asia", United Asia. Vol. I 1948, p. 59.

^^Jawahar Lai Nehru’s speeches, 1947-49, p. 302-
p. 254.

Report of the Forty-second Indian National Congress p, 22.

“S-K.V. Punlambekar, The Developing Unity of Asia p. 69.

'•’Damodar P. Singhal, Nationalism in India and other Historical Essays (1967). p. 299-
•‘’K-M. Panikkar, Asia and Western Dominance, p. 322.

‘'^Bipin Chandra Pal, Memories of My Life and Times, Vol. 1 (1932), p. 226.

’’'B.B- Majumdar, History of Indian Social and Political Ideas : From Rant Mohan to Dayananda
(1967) p. 179.

J«B.C. Pal, op. cit., pp. 228-29.

Oatta, Renaissance, Nationalism and Social Changes in India (1965) p. 4
®'Sisir Kumar Mitra, Resurgent India (1963) p. 77.

^-^V.S. Narvanc, Mjd(rn Indian Thought: A Philosophical Survey (1964) p. 42.

‘''^Quoted in G-H. Jansen, 'P. cit., p. 37.

Pradhan, India’s struggle for Swaraj (1930) p. 00-
® ’D.N. Verma. "India and Asian Solidarity 1900-1939", Journal of the Bihar Re.search Society,
Vol. XLIX .Tanuary-December 1963, p. 318.

“®Keshab Chandra Sen, Lectures in India (1904) p. 53.

-^Keshab Chandra Sen, Lectures in India (1901) pp, 33-34.

asp c. Majumdar, The Life and Teachings of Keshab Chandra Sen (1887) p. 177.

“®Keshab Chandra Sen, Lectures in India (1901) pp. 33-34.

‘■''•Ibid.

M.L. Parikh, Brahmarshi Keshab Chandra Sen, p. 36.

'■^“Keshab Chandra Sen in England Vol. 1 p. 135.

■'‘“Kalidas Nag, Greater India (1960) p. 737.

®‘Keshab Chandra Sen : Lectures in India (1901) p. 34.

»'*Wil!iam Theodore De Bary (ed) Sources of Indian Tradition (1958) p, 621.

^^Ibid, p, 627.

8’Max Muller, Ram Mohan to Ramakrishna (1952) p- 57.

3®Lord Ronaldshay. The Heart of Aryavarta : The P-sychology of Indian Unrest (1925) p. 53.
“®Kalidas Nag, Discovery of Asia, p, 9.

‘"Cited in Friend of India, May 1, 1874.

^'Proceedings of the First-Indian National Congress, 18ft5, (1905) pp. 74-75.

^^Report of the Seventh Indian National Congress p. 31.

^Ibid

“Hans Kohn, A History of Nationalism in the East. (1929) pp. 48-49,

‘®Dc Lacy O’ Leary, Islam at the Cross Roads (1923) p. 121.

‘•J.C. Das Gupta, op. cit. p 95.

Hindoo Patriot, August, 23, 1877, Editorial in Indian Daily News August 31,1877.

^^Proceedings No. 165, April, 1898 Foreign Deptt. Government of India.

Indian Nationalism and Asia

**Proceedini No. 124, June, 1899, Foreign Deptt. Government of India.

®®Lakshmi Kant Choudhary, “The Pan-lslamic Movement m India**, Current Studies, Vol. XJV,
April, 19fi4 (A Patna College Research Journal) p. 97.

®^R.C, Majumdar, History of Freedom Movement in India, Vol. 1. p. 421.

®U.P, Macdonnel, the Lieutenant-Governor of the North West Provinces, to Elgin, il t
Viceroy, July, 16 and August 22,1897, Elgin Papers, MSS Eur F. 841-II. Nos. 36 aad 53.
^'^Lakshmi Kant Choudhary, op. at ; p. 98.

^^A.H. Albiruni, Makers of Pakistan and Modem Muslim India (1950) p. 57-58.

■’■'A.R. Desai, Social Background of India Nationalism, (1954), p. 67.

56Werner Levei, Free India in Asia (1954), p. 19.

CHAPTER III

INDIAN NATIONALISM AND ASIA 1900-1918

The Nationalist India, with the beginning of the 20th century, entered into
a new phase of its career and a new horizon full of hopes, appeared before the
Indians. The Indian National Congress, which spearheaded the Indian struggle for
freedom right up to the achievement of independence in 1947, was in the first thirty
years of its existence, very moderate in its attitude towards the British and most of
its leaders believed that independence could best be achieved by co-operation with
the British government itself. Leaders like Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Surendranath
Banerjee, Rash Behari Ghose, Madan Mohan Malaviya, Oadabhai Naoroji, Phiroz
Shah Mehta and others, who belonged to the so-called Moderate group of the
Congress, did not want complete independence for India and absolute severence of
India from Britain, 'fhe Moderates were the friends of constitutional evolution and
the enemies of a vioient revolution.^ Gokhale, the greatest of the Moderate Con¬
gressmen, incorporated the ideal of colonial self-government in the Preamble to the
rules of his Servants of India Society founded in June 1905.“* In his presidential
address to the 21st Session of the Indian National Congress, Gokhale declared that
the goal of the Congress was that India should be governed in the interests of the
Indians themselves, and that in course of time a form of Government should be
attained in this country similar to what existed in the self-governing colonies of the
British Empire.'’ Gokhale and S.P. Sinha thought British connection beneficial so
much so that they said to Lord Hardinge^ and Lady Minto’’ respectively that if the
British immediately left the country then no sooner had they reached Aden then
Indians would have to cable them asking them to come back.

Although for a period of three decades the leadership of the Congress was held
by the Moderates but by the middle of the first decade of the 20th century a new
class of nationalists emerged and posed a serious breach with the Moderate leader¬
ship. This group of nationalists, known as Extremists, aimed at complete freedom
of India from alien rule and considered the mild methods of moderation and loyalty
to be insuflUcient for the liberation of the motherland. The inadequacy of the
constitutional means, the unwise acts of Curzon administration, t he partition of
Ben ^l in 1905 . the victory of Japan in the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, the deter¬
iorating economic condition of the country and the outbreaks of famine and plague
in the closing and the early years of the 19th and the 20th centuries respectively
added fuel to the fire of the discontent of the leaders and the extremists made their
head way.

The extremists found their leaders in Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai,

Indian Nationalism and Asia

Bipin Chandra Pal and Aurobindo Chose. Long before in 1893-94 Aurobindo
Chose, in a series of articles published in the Indu Prakash, had made bitter attacks
on the policies of the Congress and accused its leaders of timidity and asked for
vigorous attempts to prove their worth.® Bal Cangadhar Tilak, who brought
political philosophy in India from heaven to earth, from the council Hall or the
Congress mandap to the street and the market,’ was the greatest of the extremist
leaders. Criticising the policy of the Moderates, he observed :

“There is no empire lost by a free grant of concessions by the rulers to the
ruled”.® Infact, he did not believe that benevolence had any place in politics
and that any political concession would be granted to Indians by the British
rulers out of purely benevolent motives.® He asked his countrymen to boycott
the English in every way and assured them that “if you can, you are free from
tomorrow”.^" Bipin Chandra Pal also assured the Indians that they could be
free by refusing to co-operate with the British rulers in the work of carrying on
the administration of the country.^^ Lala Lajpat Rai advocated the need for a
struggle within the Congress and accused the Congress of having created the
false impression that it could gain political reforms by merely passing resolu¬
tions and delivering speeches.'" “The first principle which every Indian
politician ought to realise”, Lajpat Rai said :

“No nation is worthy of any political status if it can not distinguish between
begging rights and claiming them”.'® Speaking on the occasion of the anniver¬
sary celebration of the Arya Samaj, Lajpat Rai called upon the people to carry
their struggle for freedom and observed, “the tree of the nation calls for
blood, world history was written in letters of blood, let us crown our national
movement with martyrdom”.'*

Thus, by the middle of the first decade of the 20th century the Congress was
faced with a serious danger of internal differences. Two groups in the Congress
appeared and they seemed to be face to face with each other. The partition of
Bengal added impetus to extremism in Indian politics'® and even the advocates of
constitutional methods felt shocked by Curzon’s repressive policy.'® Widespread
resentment was expressed by the people against the partition and the Congress
launched a plan of “Swadeshi and Boycott”. The Extremists desired to boycott all
that was British,'’ whereas the Moderates maintained that the Congress resolution
of 1905 had not supported a policy of total political boycott of the Government of
India.'** The Moderates regarded the policy of boycott as a temporary measure
adopted for the purpose of modifying the partition of Bengal,'* the Extremists
did not want that the policy of boycott should be confined to Bengal alone
but it should move from province to province*® and they wanted to leave the
government severely alone.*' Aurobindo Ghose frankly stated, “Boycott of foreign
goods is a nec^sary condition for the encouragement of Swadeshi industries,
boycott of government schools is a necessary condition for the growth of national
education, boycott of British Courts is a necessary condition for the spread of arbit¬
ration”.**

The two groups in the Congress differed from one another in their objectives
and the methods and the clash between the two seemed to be inevitable. The signs
of this clash manifested at the 21st Session of the Congress held at Benaras in

Indian Nationalism and Asia 1900-1918

December, 1905 on the issue as to what the Congress was to do when the Prince of
Wales visited India.*® The growing rift in the Congress became vivid in 1906 when
Tilak’s candidature for the presidency of the Congress was proposed by the Extre¬
mists and the Moderates opposed it.*'* The split in the Congress fold was averted in
1906 but it could not be permanently averted and the schism within the Congress
came to the surface in 1907 when there arose the controversy over the candidature
for the presidency of the 23rd Session to be held at Surat. The extremists proposed
Lajpat Rai, while the Moderates nominated Rash Behari Chose. Some untoward
incidents took place and the Surat Congress ended in pandemonium with shoes,
sticks and chairs flying through the air.*° The Moderates reorganised the Congress
in such a way as to exclude the Extremists and according to the first article of its
new constitution drawn upon in 1908, the objective of the Congress was declared
to be the “attainment by the people of India a system of government similar to
that enjoyed by the self governing members of the British Empire and participation
by them in the rights and responsibilities of the Empire on equal terms with those
members”.*®

At a time when the Congress was divided into two irreconciliable camps, Indian
Nationalism was confronted with another impediment which was to prove grave
and disastrous in future. The British policy to divide and rule,** Hindu agitation
against the partition of Bengal,** the pro-Muslim policy of the government, and the
Muslim’s fear of the domination of the Hindus fanned the Muslim separatism.
Motley, the Secretary of State for India, promised the first instalment of reforms in
the House of Commons in August, 1906 and also declared that the reforms granted
would be on the lines desired by the Congress. This statement of the Secretary of
State caused concern among the Muslim who began to ask as to what would be the
fate of the Indian Muslims if the reforms were to be granted on the lines desired by
the Congress. This anxiety compelled Nawab Mehdi Ali Khan, popularly known as
Mohasin-ul-Mulk, the Secretary of Aligarh College, to write a letter to W.A.J.
Archbold, the principal of the college, who was staying at Simla at that time, seek¬
ing his permission and advice for a deputation to wait on the Viceroy to submit the
view of Mohammedans on the matter of constitutional reforms.** Due to the
incessant efforts of Mohasin-ul-Mulk, Archbold, Dunlop Smith, the private secretary
of Minto, a deputation of thirty-five led by the Aga Khan, presented an address to
the Viceroy on October 1, 1906. The deputationists demanded that if representative
institutions were extended to India the government should take into consideration
the political importance of the Muslim community and safeguard their interests in
the municipal and local boards and provincial and imperial legislative councils.**’
I.ord Minto gave a sympathetic hearing to the deputation and assured the delegation
that he was entirely in accord with their case.*^ The delegation was characterised by
Maulana Muhammad Ali as a command performance^'^ and Rajendra Prasad held
the view that the delegation was engineered by Archbold, the British Principal of
Aligarh college.*® The “Amrita Bazar Patrika” wrote on October 4, 1906: “The
whole thing appears to be a got-up affair and fully engineered by interested
officials So the all-India Mohammadan Deputation is neither all-India, nor all-
Mohammedan, nor even a Deputation, properly so called. It is only an instrument
in the hands of the officials to whitewash their doings”.*^ To what extent the depu-

Indian Nationalism and Asia

tation was engineered one could be known from the contemporary writings and
statements of the officials. Buchan, the biographer of Minto, observed that Minto’s
reply to the Muslim Deputation undoubtedly prevented the ranks of sedition being
swollen by Muslim recruits, an inestimable advantage in the day of trouble which
was dawning Even Morley, in whom the Moderates had a firm faith, expressed
his jubilation at the conduct of Minto, and looked upon the deputation as a master
stroke of diplomacy or statesmanship.M.S. Jain has taken great pains to prove
that the Muslim deputation to Lord Minto was not a command performance.*’
Syed Razi Wasti wrote that the view that deputation was inspired “is to distort
history and to underrate both Muslim political aspirations and the integrity and
intellectual capability of Muslim leadership”.*" But the diary of Lady Minto,*® and
the detailed statement of Tufail Ahmad^® and the view expressed by Ramsay
MacDonald,” lent support to the notion that the Muslim Deputation was a planned
scheme. Even Morley wrote on December 6, 1909 that it was Minto who had
started the Muslim bere^‘

Encouraged by the patronage received from the government, the leading mem¬
bers of the deputation assembled at Dacca on December 30, 1906 and formed the
Ail India Muslim League which was to promote among Indian Muslims feeling of
loyalty towards the British Government, to protect the political and other rights
of Indian Muslims and to place their needs and aspirations before the Government
and to promote friendly feelings between Muslims and other communities of India.**
The establishment of the Muslim League proved to be a mile stonein the history of
India and diversihed the current of Indian nationalism into two dilTerent channels.
It remained aloof from the Congress nationalism throughout the years 1907 and
1910'* and the leaders of the League advised the Muslims to eschew the agitational
policies of the Congress, to regard themselves as soldiers of a British regiment and
to help in the continuance of the British rule.**

Inspite of these impediments the Indian National Movement made itself a
factor to be reckoned with and the British Government had to concede some con¬
cessions to the Indian people in 1909 in the form of Morley-Minto Reforms Two
Indians were admitted to the Council of the Secretary of State in London. One
Indian was appointed as a member of Viceroy’s Executive Council. In expanding
the imperial and provincial legislative councils the Morley-Minto reforms introduced
for the first lime in Indian political system the principles of Communal electorate.
Mu.clims and the land holders were given the concession of separate electorate.

The First World War occured in 1914. India rendered highly valuable services
to the Allies in men, money and munitions. The Indian National Congress and its
meeting at Madras in December, 1914 conveyed to the King-Emperor and the peo¬
ple of England its profound devotion to the Throne, its unswerving allegiance to
the British connection, and its firm resolve to stand by the empire, at all hazards
and at all costs *“ The Muslim League also remained loyal to the British Raj and
Maulana Mohammed Ali wired to the Sultan of Turkey either to support Britain or
to keep neutral in this war.*’ Satisfied with the co-operation of the Indians, the
Secretary of State for India, E.S. Montague, declared on August 20,1917 that more
and more Indians would be given the opportunity to associate themselves with the
every branch of the administration for the progressive realisation pf responsible

Indian J^atiqnalism and Asia 1900-191^

government in India a§ &ii Integral part of the British Empire.'*^ With the help of
Chelmsford, the Viceroy of India, Montague, produced a joint scheme of reforms,
known as Montague-Chelmsford Reforms, which was published on July 8, 1918,
and was embodied in the Government of India Act, of 1919, The Montague-Chel¬
msford Report could not satisfy the nationalist leaders and both Mrs. Annie Besant
and Tilak characterised it as unworthy and unacceptable.^" The Moderate leaders
apptoved of the Report and stayed out of the Bombay Congress held in 1918 and
held a separate conference of their oWn In November 1918.“

While the British Government was engaged in a critical battle with Germany,
Austria and Turkey, some factors brought about Congress-League compromise.
The Anglo-Ru ssia n a greement of l^Q2.^bout P ers i a, th e_waiLJ?e tween Italy an d
Turkey and t^ pro-Italy policy of rte BrjtisL(3o_vernmcnt aad-seysral ptlw
.tors prepared tlm way for Hindu-Muslim Unity. Britain's antiiTurkishpoUcy in the
.Middle Eist and repressive measures in India drove Hindus and Muslims into each
other's arms.®^ The Muslim League under the influence of Jinnah and Muzhar-ul-
Huq adopted the Congress ideal of self-government in 1913 and both the Muslim
League and the Congress held their annual session at B ombay in 1915. Muzhar-ul-
Huq, who presided over the League session, and^o^' S. P. Sinha, who presided
over the Congress session, travelled to Bombay by tBFsame train and both showed
their presidential address to each other.®' This growing consciousness of Hindu-
Muslim Unity reached its climax in 1916 when both the Congress and the Muslim
League held their annual sessions at Lucknow and concluded the Lucknow Pact by
which the Congress agreed to separate electorates and both the organisations jointly
formulated a scheme of reforms known as the Congress-League scheme."®

Thus during 1900-1918 the Indian National Movement made rapid progress
and succeeded in compelling the British Government to concede two reform acts in
1909 and 1918-19. Both the Indian National Congress and the All-India Muslim
League co-operated with each other for the larger national interests during the
stormy days of the First World War.

Although the Indian National Movement was engrossed in activities to register
itself as a factor to be reckoned with during 1900*1918, politically awakened India
did not remain aloof from the Asiatic neighbours with whom she shared much in
common. India’s Asian consciousness, developed in the 19th century, proceeded on a
vigorous career with the beginning of the 20th century. AsMrly,as^ 901 ^jfeindra_
Nfith Tagr> rg_£xprffssftH Pan-Asian ideas^* in the course of an app reciate .rcyicw__oi,
Lowes Dickinson’s Letters o f John Chinaman . Towards the close of 1901 two
nese Buddhist ^cholaIrs visited India and invited Swami Vivekanand to attend the
proposed Congress of Religions in Japan One of the visitors was the famous^ Japa¬
nese artist Okakura Kakuzo, “a devoted lover of India and an ardent champion of
Iher freedom and that of the whole of Asia from foreign domination”.®® The Swami,
who believed in the cultural unity of Asia,®® spoke of Okakura—-”We are two bro¬
thers who meet again, having come from these ends of the earth ”®’ Not only this,
the Indian nationalists noted with gratification Japan’s recognition as an equal power
by England as a result of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902. Indians, who wanted
to place Asia on the map of the world and to shatter the belief of the inherent
inferiority of the Asiatics, hailed the Alliance as the signal for the awakening of

Indian Nationalism and Asia

Asia. Surendra Nath Benerjee in his presidential address to the Indian National
Congress held in 1902, appreciated Japan’s wonderful sclf-sacrifice, her patience,
her fortitude, her indomitable energy which had won for her marvellous success in
her ambitions.®^

Victims of imperialism as they were, the Indian nationalists made scathing
attack on the imperialist policy of Britain in Asia. The Indian National Congress
criticised the forward policy of British-Indian Government and expressed its concern
over the interference of the Government of India in the internal affairs of the neigh¬
bouring countries. The fear of Russian menace gave birth to Anglo-Russian rivalry
and to counteract the growing Russian influence in Asia and to strengthen its in¬
fluence in Persia, Afghanistan and Tibet, the British-India Government followed an
ambitious foreign policy which caused resentment among the nationalist leaders in
India. Any attempt on the part of the British Government to increase its influence
in Asia was to result in the loss of the Asiatics which was considered to be the loss
of the Indians themselves by the Indian leaders. Since the congress was opposed
to the expansionist policy of the British-India Government, Lai Mohan Ghose con¬
demned the British policy of interfering in the internal affairs of neighbouring count¬
ries as pseudo-imperialism which impelled some of the British authorities to seek new
adventures beyond Indian frontiers whether in Afghanistan or in Burma or in
Tibet.--**

Curzon, the imperialist Viceroy of India, wanted to forestall Russian influence
in Tibet. To establish British stronghold there he despatched the Younghusband
Mission to Tibet. The Indian National Congress vehemently criticised British inter¬
ference in the affairs of Tibet. Henry Cotton, who became the President of the Indian
National Congress in 1904, made scathing criticism of this expansionist policy and
described the despatch of the expedition as “a monstrous thing, an outrage and a
blunder through and through.”®'* Speaking from the Presidential chair of the Indian
National Congress held in 1904. Henry Cotton characterised the despatch of Young-
husband Mission as an act of aggression and unprovoked trespass, on others’ pro¬
perty. The Congress deplored the ruthless slaughter of the unarmed Tibetan people
whose only fault lay in resisting foreign invasion of their country. Indians had no
interest in the expedition to Tibet which had been despatched to serve trade and
imperial interests of the British. Inspite of the disinterestedness of the Indian people,
the Congress President pointed out, the total cost of the expedition had been impos¬
ed on the poverty ridden people of India.®‘ Needless to say that the fear of heavy
taxation stimulated the Indian leaders to criticise British expedition to Tibet but the
sympathy expressed by the Indian leaders for the miserable lot of the Tibetans
manifested the growing fellow-feeling with Asian neighbours in hours of trouble.

Indian leaders developed the habit of speaking on behalf of Asia. Hence any¬
thing and everything which had a demoralising effect on the Asian culture was
highly resisted in India. Curzon, the Viceroy of India, who considered the Asiatic
people as an inferior race, addressing the university convocation of Calcutta on
February II, 1905 remarked: “the highest ideal of truth is to a large extent a We¬
stern conception. Undoubtedly truth took a high place in moral codes of the West
before it had been similarly honoured in the East, where craftiness and diplomatic
wile have always been held in much repute... Oriental diplomacy meant... Some-

Indian Nationalism and Asia 1900-1918

thing rather tortuous and hyper subtle. The same may be seen in Oriental literatures.*^
This statement sparked off a wave of resentment among the Indians and was seve*
rely condemned by the educated Indians who thought it derogatory to the prestige
of the Oriental Culture. The Indian nationalists and the nationalist Press took up
the statement as an insult to the Oriental people. The Arorita Bazar Patrika charac¬
terised the statement as “a violaton of his (Curzon) own ideas....when himself
Governor-General and Viceroy, see (the Asians) with contemptuous eyes”.®* The
statement was referred to be as capricious and absurd and even Rabindra Nath
Tagore, who had a high regard for the Western Culture, joined in the countrywide
agitation against Lord Curzon's unwarrantable attack on the veracity of Eastern
people.®^

The year 1905 witnessed remarkable developments in Asia as a whole. Lord
Curzon effected the partition of Bengal in 1905 which caused widespread protest
in the country. The whole nation was ablaze and from all corners of the country
voices were raised to undo it. While such a nationwide resentment was fast develop¬
ing in India, one of the dramatic events of history took place in the Far East where
two powers—one a Europeans and the other Asiatic-were locked in a war over the
question of Korea.

This epoch making event was the Russo-Japanese War which gave a new turn
to the Asian history. The news of the Russo-Japanese war had an electrifying effect
on Indian people and the Indian nationalists seized the opportunity to express their
sympathy with Japan, an Asiatic power, engaged in a life and death struggle with a
European power. While the war was going on, the Hindustan Review and Kayastha
Samachar, an Indian Journal of repute, expressed sympathy with Japan and
observed :

“The sympathy of India naturally goes to Japan and it is the universal wish of

our countrymen that she may succeed in inflicting the severest possible blow

on her military adversary.’’®®

The victory of Japan over Russia sent a tremour all over Asia and Asian pride,
hitherto battered by a continuous stream of Western conquests, was bolstered by the
Japanese victory. The victory of Japan fired the imagination of Asian nationalists and
it was warmly received especially in India. To the Indians, this war between Japan
and Russia seemed to be a war between the East and the West, between Asia and
Europe and the success of an Asian power in breaking the so-called invincibility of
the West was hailed in every corner of Asia. Almost for the first time in the history
of modern warfare an Asiatic army trained and disciplined by Asiatic Generals and
equipped by War material and appliances of pure Asiatic make, had thoroughly
beaten European force of one of the giant powers of the world. Hitherto, it was the
fond illusion of European statesmen and thinkers that there was some inherent
constitutional inferiority in the Asiatic which made his perpetual subordination and
serfdom to European capitalists and exploiters inevitable. To this vicious and irri¬
tating vein of thought the Japanese victory gave a rude shock and this was the reason
behind the Indian happiness over the Japanese victory in the war.

Japan became a symbol of Asian resurgence and a source of inspiration to the
Indian nationalists in their struggle for freedom. The Indian Review represented the
true feelings of the Indian people in its editorial remark which said wonderful and

Indian Nationalism and Asia

marvellous" Japan had humbled a huge European power, a by no means mean repre¬
sentative of all that is haughty and arrogant among the nations of the West.*®
Samay added :

“We (the people in the East) who are hated as cowards and imbecile, are proud
of this triumph of the East in its terrible struggle with the West. We heartily
congratulate thee, Japan, on thy wonderful courage, thy discipline, thy iron
will, and thy indomitable energy thou alone hast saved the honour of the
East, the downtrodden East.”®' The Bengalee, a nationalist daily of Calcutta,
shared the joys of the Indian people oyer Japan’s victory in the War and
proudly proclaimed that the Asiatic race had broken the pride of the greatest
power in Europe so thoroughly that not even hope of retirement is left.®"

In India resurgent Japan became a symbol of hope. Indian National Movement
found an impetus in the Japanese victory over Russia Jawahar Lai Nehru also
felt excited at the news of the Japanese victories. Writing of his own feelings at the
news of the Japanese Victories he observed :

‘‘I remember well how excited I used to get when news cime of the Japanese
victories. That excitement was shared by many a boy and girl and grown up in
Asia A great European power had been defeated; therefore Asia could still
defeat Europe as it had done so often in the past. N itionalism spread more
rapidly over the Eastern countries and the cry of Asia fur Asiatics was heard.
But this nationalism was not a mere return to the past, a clinging on to old
customs and beliefs. Japan’s victory was seen to be due to her adoption of the
industrial methods of the West, and these ideas and methods became more
popular all over the East.®® Japanese victory, stirred up my enthusiasm and I
waited eagerly for the papers for fresh news daily. I invested in a large number
of books on Japan.”’®

Another contemporary Indian Nationalist, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, admired
the achievements of Japan and advised the Indians to take lessons from Japanese
people.” Gokhale showered his choicest praise on Japan “There can be no surer
road , said Gokhale, to a final success thin that which Japan had trodden."’’
Infact, the achievement of Japan became a source of inspiration for India and for
all Asia. He advised the Indians to show devotion to motherland in the same way
as it was in Japan ’® Tilak gave a similar advice lo the Indians’* and Tilak’s paper
Keshari wrote that a knowledge of the history of the rise of Japan had kindled in
the people s mind a strong desire for Swarap^ Rabindra Nath Tagore maintained :
“Japan s example has given heart to the rest of Asia We have seen that the
life and the strength arc there in us, only the dead crust has to be removed.’®
Similar views were expressed by Swami Vivekananda ” Mahatma Gandhi’s
outlook on military conflict between Japan and Russia was in favour of ‘ righteous
Japanese” against aggressor Russia. Gandhi’s newspaper declared its admiration
for the sheer force of character of the Japane.se who had brought themselves into
the fore front of the nations of the world The journal considered Japan’s victory
as a beneficial symbol of a new Asia confronting the West.’® Lala Lajpat Rai,
popularly known as the Lion of Punjab, told the Indian people that Japan was a
splendid example of what could be achieved by a nation guided by a benevolent
national government to her people.’® The pillars of the Indian national movement.

Indian Nationalism and Asia 1900-1918

thus, made frequent reference to Japan for the promotion of national feeling**® and
the victories of Japan, rightly observed Morley, did not pass unobserved in India.®^
Japan’s victory over Russia thrilled the hearts of the nationalist leaders and infused
in them a new hope and vigour. The virtues of patriotism self-sacrifice shown by
the Japanese impressed the younger generations in India and inspired them to free
their country from foreign domination.®-

What to say of the leaders, even the villagers were interested in the Russo-
Japanese war and became Jubilant on Japanese victories over Russia. An eye-wit¬
ness to the popular Indian enthusiasm over Japanese victories against Russia, C.F.
Andrews, wrote, “Astir of excitement passed over the North of India. Even the
remote villagers talked over the victories of Japan as they sat in their circles and
passed round the huqqa (pipe) at night.”**® To the average Indian nothing had hap¬
pened in Asia like the Japanese victories over Russia since the Indian Mutiny of 1857.
Even the most ignorant peasants tingled with the news of Japan's success. To the
Muslims Russian reverses seemed to mark the limit of the expansion of the Chris¬
tian nations over the world’s surface. To the Hindus, “the old time glory and great¬
ness of Asia seemed destined to return. The material aggrandisement of the Euro¬
pean races at the expense of the East seemed at least to be checked. The whole of
Buddha land from Ceylon to Japan might again become one in thought and life,
Hinduism might once more bring forth its old treasures of spiritual culture for the
benefit of mankind. Behind these dreams and visions was one exulting hope that
the days of servitude to the West were over and the days of independence had
dawned. Much had gone before to prepare the way for such a dawn of hope, the
Japanese victories made it, for the first time, shining and radiant.”'**

The nationalist press expressed jubilation over Japan’s victories and asked the
Indian people to take lessons from the Japanese nation. The Daily Httavadi advised
the Indians to take a lesson from Japan in order to be qualified as civilised and enli¬
ghtened.**® The Amrita Bazar Patrika expressed a sense of relief that Japanese victo¬
ries would mark an end to the exploitation of the East by the West.**® The defeat of
Russia, was expected, would save the Mussalmans (Turkey) and Buddhists (India)
from the clutches of the Christians.” Another Indian Journal urged the Indians to
make Japan as their ideal and to imitate her.**** The Bangalee told the Indian people
that the interests of India demanded that the sons of the country should, like the
children of the land of the Rising Sun, acquire the power to adapt themselves to
everchanging circumstances.**®

Nationalist India shared the joys of the Japanese victories in such an abundant
manner that an Indian student reading in Tokyo wrote to a Japanese Journal:

“You (the Japanese), perhaps, can not imagine to what extent they (the
Indians) loved her (Japan). So great was the interest of our people in Japan,
that our weekly papers turned into daily ones, and the Press had sometimes to
publish extra issues. Every morning the people anxiously waited at their doors
for the newsboy, and the students could not attend to the books without read¬
ing the telegrams (giving an account of the War). After the fall of Port Arthur
we shared your joy and pride not to a small degree and the city of Calcutta
and many other towns and villages were adorned with illuminations. Indeed
we in India shared your pride more than, perhaps, the rest of the world

Indian Nationalism and Asia

because to us the victory of Japan meant more than what met the eyes of the

ordinary world.”**®

Continuing the student observed that even the very common man, who could
just read the newspapers, could narrate the story of the Russo-Japanese War from
the beginning to the end.®' Mrs. Annie Besant in her presidential address for Indian
National Congress held in 1917 referred to the impact of the Japanese Victory on
India and the enthusiasm which Indians demonstrated on the victory of a fellow-
Asian country over a European power.*® A Bengali Journal, Sri Vishnu Priya-c-
Ananda Bazar Patrika, expressed pleasure at the Japanese victory in the War and
urged the Indian people to do what the Japanese people had done in Japan. It
further wrote : “the delusive belief (of the Europeans and Americans) that Easter¬
ners are destined to remain in perpetual tutelage and servitude to Western will now
probably disappear from many a Western mind.”"* Making an appeal to the Indian
people to follow the example of Japan, the Journal asked, “If the rice-eating Jap is
capable of throwing into utter rout and disorder the Russian Soldier, can not the
rice eating Indians (meaning Bengalees) also if properly trained, do the same?”, and
advised the English rulers to make no more attempt to trodden down the Indians
like flies in the dust and assured the Indians that the East (India) was sure to triu¬
mph over the West (Britain) if it studied and emulated Japan.®'* Valentine Chirol,
who had the opportunity to know the heat of the Indian mind in the post Russo-
Japanese War era, also shared the views expressed by the above Journal.®*

It was the Japanese victory over Russia which heralded a new spirit in India
and in Indian politics. The emergence of Japan us a victorious nation convinced
some of the Indians that physical strength was needed to win independence and
thus partly influenced the growth of extremism in Indian politics.®" Lovett also
held the view that the restlessness in India for political freedom was stimulated by
the achievements of Japan.®’ Prof. L.F. Rushbrook Williams and J. Campbell Ker,
the two contemporary English men, in their study on the causes of the “Rise of the
Left” in the Congress and those of “Subversive Movement” pointed out that the
victory of Asiatic Japan over European Russia was an epoch making event and
turned the tide of the national movement in India.®" Growth of revolutionary acti¬
vities in India was partly stimulated by the Japanese victories in the War. Several
secret societies were organised and the records of the Home Department had refer¬
red to the establishment of a Physical force party among the Bengalees who
appeared to have been inspired by the result of the Russo-Japanese war.®"

There was a section of public opinion in India which thought that the Indian’s
Jubilation over the Janapese success in the war was not due to the fellow feeling of
the Indians for the Japanese ; it was, on the contrary, due to the fact that Japan
was an ally of the British Government which governed the Indian people. Tripura
Hitaishi advanced the argument that“Japan had defeated a power (Russia) which was
the bitterest foe of our (British) Government*"" and hence the Indians were happy.”
A close study of the state of affairs in India of the time would rejected this view
point The enthusiasm and pleasure expressed by Indians on the Japanese victories
over Russia symbolised the sympathy and a spirit of solidarity with Japan, an
Asiatic power, against Russia, a European nation. This could be substantiated by
the developments of the later years. When the Indians adopted Swadeshi as the

Indian Nationalism and Asia 1900-1918

creed of their national movement they boycotted the foreign goods coming in India
from all the alien nations but the Japanese goods were openly sold and purchased
in India. Tilak’s paper Kesari advocated giving preference to Japanese manufactures
above ail imported goods.^"’ The real spirit of the state of affairs in India was truly
expressed by the Bengalee which wrote: “Japanese success have evoked Pan-Asiatic
feeling which India shares to the fullest extent. In the Home Affairs there is a new¬
born spirit which is striving to bring the reactionary Government of the country
within the sphere of popular control. These are clear indications of the great East¬
ern revival.”'""

Thus, Japan became a model for India and the latter pinned up her hope of
Asian solidarity in the rise of Japan and a close collaboration began to develop
between these two Asian nations. Indian students began to visit Japan for higher
studies. In 1898 (wo Indian students went to Japan. Indian students in Japan in
November 1903 numbered fifteen and in 1906 this number rose to fifty-four.'"" The
reason why the Indian students flocked to Japan for higher studies was the similarity
between Japan and India in the educational methods and cultural approaches.'"'
The Japanese gave sympathetic treatment to the Indian students studying in Japan.'"'*

India’s friendly feelings for Japan were manifested at the time when Indians
launched a widespread boycott of foreign goods. While the nationalist leaders in
India urged the people to boycott all foreign goods, they encouraged the free sale of
Japanese goods. Large quantities of Japanese hosiery were openly sold and the
boycott did not apply to the Japanese goods.'”" The Indian Taxtile Journal advised
the Indians to seek those goods in Japan which the Indians were not capable to
manufacture.'"" Tilak, in supporting the Congress resolution on Swadeshi, appealed
to the Indians to show preference above all other to native and next, to Japanese
manufactures.'"" The Indians expressed their sorrow at the sufferings of the
Japanese caused by an earthquake and contributed something to help them which
were gratefully acknowledged by the Japanese This growing solidarity between
India and Japan encouraged mutual trade and export to Japan in five years follow¬
ing 1905 increased by four times and the Japanese goods which were imported in
India increased by three times."" A .Tapanese businessman admitted that the export
import trade between India and .Japan increased in volume in the years that followed
the Russo-Japanese War.'" Some commercial concessions were given to the Indian
exports to Japan and private Indian Capital gotjmi5asy-catQL-in.to.Jy>an* Further¬
more, Japan adopted prelcrentlaTtariff policy towards India.""

India’s friendly gestures towards Japan were well received in Japan which, in
turn, expressed moral sympathy with the Indian struggle for independence. Indian
students were allowed to celebrate the anniversary of the Indian Hero Sbivaji in
Tokyo. Count Okuma, the Honorary President of the Japan-Indian Society, gave a
spirited address and advised the Indian students to prove their worth for the
independence they aimed at.”" “The celebrations”, wrote the Bengalee, “partook of
the nature of the Pan-Asiatic demonstration”."* Count Okuma advised the Indians
to endeavour to invigorate the national spirit and added, ‘ A nation is entitled to
talk of independence only after it has entirely abolished its own evil customs,
ennobled its own character and attained the same qualifications as any other
powerful rising nation. Neither the evolution theory nor any modern advanced

Indian Nationalism and Asia

'l thought admits that the evils consequent on the Hindu Caste System and religious
: superstition should have a place in any civilised nation*’."*^ This statement of the
; Japanese Statesman was taken up seriously by the Indians. Ramananda Chatterjee,

' one of the leading personalities of India, disapproved of the suggestions. However,

; he welcomed the Japanese statesman’s advice in as much as it was a reminder of
' India’s short-comings. ““

Growing ties of friendship between India and Japan were strengthened more
j when the Japanese speaker in the Japanese House of Peers declared that it was the
sacred duty of Japan, as the leading Asiatic State, to stretch a helping hand to
Indians to tree them from European yoke.^” Lancelot Lawton, a contemporary
European Writer, found Japanese sympathy to the national aspirations of India and
pointed out that prominent space was given to the Indian matters in the Japanese
newspapers."^ Besides giving moral support to the Indian nationalists, the Japanese
gave material help to the famine affected people of Bihar. An Indian Journal
expressed a sense of gratitude to Japan for her help to the famine-stricken people of
Bihar."*

The Japanese Press took up the cause of India’s freedom. In an article entitled
“The Nationalist Party in India”, the Japanese Chronicle, an English Daily of
Tokyo, supported the Congress’s demand for Swaraj. The paper criticised the
Britishers for their pretention that the Indians were not fit for self government and
pleaded that a nation could not learn the use of liberty except by using liberty.
Championing India’s case for independence the paper expressed dismay at the
British attitude that the Indians could not be given self rule as they were hetero¬
genous combinations of races, creeds and religions. The Japanese paper further
supported the Indians in their demand for independence and observed that even a
divided nation would function in unity when it would realise that unity was essential
for its existence.^"" Another Japanese statesman, Baron Eiichi Shibusawa, insisted
on the need of close collaboration between India and Japan.'*^”*' The Japanese
Weekly Mail in an article under the caption “The Decline und Fall of the British
Empire” advised England to learn lessons from the Russo-Japanese War and assured
the Indians of the down fall of the British Empire in India

To help the Indians in their total boycott of foreign goods the Japanese gave
encouragement to Indian traders and many new factories and mills with the aid of
Japanese machines were started and the few existing ones strengthened. The Indian
mills used the spindles manufactured in Japan^** and Japan supplied experts to

[ keep the Swadeshi industries alive.^^i ^ number of Indian students went to
Japan for industrial, agricultural and technical studies. Commenting upon the inflow
of Indian students in Japan, the Japan Weekly Mail declared that this was the
manifestation of the great trust India reposes in Japan.^^® The paper further hoped
that the Indian youngmen on their return would not only render invaluable service
to the Indian arts and industries but also add their mite in the true political, social
and moral advancement of their countrymen.^-®

These sympathetic attitudes of the Japanese towards the Indians indicated that
Japan was interested in Indian struggle for freedom. Inspitc of the Anglo-Japanese
Alliance, some of the Statesmen of Japan gave open encouragement to the Indians
in their movement for independence which led some Indians to think of actual

Indian Nationalism and Asia 1900-1918

assistance of Japan in their fight for freedom. “At present”, wrote one Raoji I
Amin, an Indian, in an English Daily from Tok)o, “India awaits the help of an
Oriental nation (Japan) which ha& al ready been a success in civilisation and by its
virtue has taught a good lesson to the countries of the West”.^”

Japan’s sympathetic attitude towards the Indian National Movement created a
wave of anxiety in the official circle of the British Indian Government Lord Curzon
was so much perturbed at the growing intimacy between Japan and India that he
refused to see Japanese Consul in India who had gone a long way to Simla to
express sympathy on behalf of his Government over India’s sufferings in the earth-
quake. The Hiiavadi, an Indian Journal, explaining the reasons for Curzon's refusal
to see the Japanese Consul pointed out that Lord Curzon was afraid of Japan’s
coming closer to India and that the Indian National Movement might be accentuat*
ed by this growing intimacy between these two Asiatic peoples.^'**

Of course, it was futile to hope that Japan would give aid to the Indian
nationalists in their struggle against the British with whom Japanese had concluded
a mutual alliance in 1902. However, no sober student of history could deny the
genuine sympathy Japanese had for the Indians. The Indian revolutionaries expelled
from India on account of seditious activities often found refuge in Japan and the
revolutionaries were not asked to leave Japan until pressed by the British envoy.

In some cases, even this demand was not granted. Rash Biha ri Bose , an India n
revolutionary, ca me to Jap an when Shigenobu Ohkuma was in offi ce. The British
authorities, who were aware of the aHivitieFdf'lla^'BiharTB^se, made a demand
lor his arrest and surrender Bose appealed to Toyama for help and protection
which was unhesitatingly granted to him by Mitsuru Toyama.^®" Valentine Chirol,
who was well versed in Asian developments, also pointed out that the emergence of
Japan created so powerful an impression in India that one was not surprised to find
the Indian revolutionaries looking in that quarter (Japan) for guidance and even,
perhaps, for assislance.^“'

Mutual understanding between India and Japan developed to such a height
that some of the Indian leaders and newspapers advocated a federation of the
Asiatic people under the leadership of Japan. An Indian daily, “Kal”, suggested a
“Confederacy of Asiatic nations under the leadership of Japan”.’"- Lala Lajpat Rai
also observed ; “the East must imbibe something of the aggressive spirit of the
West if she wants to regain her self-respect, goes without saying. I want to establish
that even at (he present moment there is a fundamental unity between India, China,
and Japan and that the Western influences over these countries have not yet
advanced sufficiently far to destroy that unity”.^®®

Thus, Japan’s victory over Russia gave an impetus to the Indian nationalist
movement and stirred up a new consciousness among the Indian leaders who began
to assert the inherent unity of Asia and to dream of an Asiatic federation. A sense
of fellow-feeling with Asian nations took a deep root in the Indian thinking and
Asianism became a part of the nationalist philosophy in India. In other words, in
India the stage was set for the development of a Pen-Asiatic movement led by the
greatly admired Japan.^®^

India’s sympathy was not confined to Japan only. Nationalist India also looked
to other parts of the Asian continent and expressed its sympathy with those suffer-

Indian Nationalism and Asia

ing under the yoke of Western exploitation. The country which attracted India's
attention was China which was subjected to injuriops trade relations. Opium trade
had been imposed on the unwilling Chinese people resulting in imbalance in Chinese
import-export trade and many social evils. Indians were shocked to see this inhuman
opium trade with China. Gopal Krishna Gokhale in his budget speech in the
Imperial Legislative Council on March 27, 1907, condemned the opium trade with
China and the social evils that the trade produced in China. Expressing his resent¬
ment over export of opium to China Gokhale observed ; ‘*I confess I have always
felt a sense of deep humiliation at the thought of this revenue, derived as it is
practically from the degradation and moral ruin of the people of China. So far as
the opium revenue is concerned, whatever may be the measure of England’s respon¬
sibility in forcing the drug on China,,the financial gain from the traffic has been
derived by India alone, and we must, therefore be prepared to give up this unholy
gain”.^®® Actually, the public in India welcomed the loss which the Chinese awake¬
ning to stop the opium trade had caused to the Indian finances.^^° This sacrifice
of the Indian leaders for the upliftment of China symbolised India’s sympathy with
the Chinese people. India looked to the Chinese Revolution of 1911 with a sympa¬
thetic eye and Sun Yat Sen, the leader of the Chinese Revolution, remained for long
the hero of Indian nationalists.^"*

Indians were so sincerely interested in the affairs of the Asian nations that
every sight of weakening of British imperialism was followed with eager hopeful¬
ness. The struggle of Egypt against British domination and the Young Turk
Revolution of ^908 aroused passionate sympathy in India. Indian nationalists
expressed their grave concern over the Anglo-Russian plan to partition Persia into
their spheres of influence.”" The grant of parliamentary constitution in Persia in
1907, and the national movements in Persia and Turkey exercised their influence
upon Young Muslim minds in India and encouraged the Indian Muslims to stand
against the authoritarian regime at home.""" Maulana Abul Kalam Azad admitted
that he was highly impressed by the Young Turk Movement and was inspired by it
to co-operate with the work of political liberation of India.”" Development in Persia
and Russian policy in that country became a subject matter of regular discussion
among the Indian Muslims in particular and the Indians in general. A mass meeting
of Mohammedans held at Nehalpur in the sub-division of Basir-hat, district 24
Paraganas, on December 23,1911, expressed deep regret at the acquiescence, of Great
Britain in the Russian demands in Persia and criticised the conduct of Russia in
Persia."**" Early in 1912 Russia, at that time a friend of Britain, perpetuated mass¬
acres in Pemia. The event shocked the Muslims and created resentment against the
attitude of the British Government. Golam Hussain moved a resolution in the
meeting of the All India Muslim League held on March 4, 1912 expressing the
League’s sympathy with the people of Persia urged upon the British Government to
get Russia to adhere to the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907."*"
Mazhar-ul-Haq raised the issue of Persia in 1912 from the Congress platform. He
pointed out that the sacrilege committed by the Russian troops on the sacred maus¬
oleum of Imam Moosi Raza at Meshed in Persia had exasperated the religious
feelings of Muslims and criticised Sir Edward Grey, the author of Anglo-Russian
Convention, for his indifferent attitude towards this outrage."*" At its session in

tndian Nationalism and Asia 1900-1918

1913 the Congress expressed its grief over the subversion of the Ottoman power in
Europe and the strangling of Persia.^*** The Amrita Bazar Patrika in its editorial
expressed sympathy with Persia.^^®

By and large, Indian Muslims did not have an organised, welNpIanned and
well-thought outlook on international problems in the first few years of the 20th
century. There was an apparent absence of foreign orientation in the Muslims of
India. But against this general lack of a foreign affairs orientation, however, must
be noted the fact of the historical sy mpathy and interest of the Muslims of India
for other Muslim countries of West Asia and North Africa.^^® Indian Muslims
opened their lips whenever they saw that their co-religionists in the countries of West
Asia were under troubles because they bad sentimental and cultural affinity with the
Muslims of these countries. Indian Muslims were loyal to the Sultan of Turkey who
was the religious and spiritual head of the Muslims of the world.

Indian Muslims also came under the influence of the Pan-Islamic movement.
When Abdul Ham^d II started the construction of the Hedjaz Railway all the
Muslim nations contributed towards the railway construction fund. Hans Kohn
wrote : “Events in one part of the Mohammedan world found an echo in far distant ^
parts. Mohammedans of all lands, especially India, contributed to the building of f
the Hedjaz Railway’’.^^’

Pan-Islamic feelings deepened in India in the first quarter of the 20th century
so much so that two Muslim gentlemen, namely Shaikh Abdur Qadir of Lahore and
Sheikh Mushir Husain Kidwai of Gadia, visited Constantinople in 1906 and received
special recognition and decoration from the Sultan of Turkey. After their return to
India they spared no labour to promote Pan-lslamic activities.^Indian Muslims
came under the spell of Pan-Islamic movement to such an extent that in. May, 1906
Miuto wrote to Motley, “There is, as you no, doubt know, a Pan-Islamic movement
working in India in no friendly sense towards our rule, and even in present circums¬
tance it will probably make itself felt’’.^^*

One of the important factors which had made the Indian Muslims loyal to the
British Rule was that the latter was at friendly terms with Muslim states, especially
Turkey. The deterioration in the relations between England and Turkey in the
beginning of the 2Uth century was anxiously watched by the Indian Muslims.
Indian Muslims, who had always felt alarmed at the anti-Turkish policy of the
Liberal Party of England, became sore over the return of the Liberal Party in
power in 1905.^®® Muslims in India began to review and reconsider their duty in
case Great Britain and Turkey were interlocked in a war. Mian Fazl-i-Husain, who
was a barrister of the Lahore High Court and a member of Viceroy’s Council from
1930-35, representing the opinion of the dominant section of the Muslims in India,
emphatically stated that in case of a war between England and Turkey, 95 per cent
of the followers of Islam in India would repudiate their allegiance to the British
Crown.^®’^ There was, however, another section of Muslims in I^ia which refuted
t he c laim of JFazl - i-Husain. Na wab Mohsin-ul-Mulk jl who aimed at creating an
Anglo-Muslim entente, declared that the Khalifa was in no way the ruler of the
Muslims. Beyond doubt, the Indian Muslims were full of sympathy and reverence
for the Sultan of Turkey and wished for the longevity of the Turkish Empire, but
being the subjects of the King-Emperor, the Muslims of India, Mohsin-ul-Mulk^

Indian Nationalism and Asia

pointed out, owed their allegiance to the king alone. He further prayed for friendly
relations between Turkey and Britain and observed, “If God forbid, there be a
war between our Government and any Mohammedan power we should, as loyal
subjects be, on the side of our own government, but as Mohammedans, we should
also be sad about it”.*®-

The year 1911 marked a turning point in the Pan-Islamic movement in India
and gave a new orientation to the Indian attempts for Asian Solidarity. Frustrated
and annoyed at the revocation of the partition of Bengal in 1911 , the Indian Muslim
were doubly shocked to hear the news of Balo-Turlcish -War. In 1911 Italy seized
Tripolitana, then part of the Turkish Empire. Great Britain remained neutral in this
war. The news that a Christian power was at war with the Caliphate aroused first
among the middle-class Indian Muslims sympathy and concern for the safety of
Turkey. The war produced a good deal of agitation among the Muslims in India who
desired that Great Britain, which contained millions of Muslims as its subjects,
should support Turkey against Italy. Hence, the British policy to remain neutral
during the war caused a stir among the Indian Muslims who became anti-British in
their outlook. To show their resentment over the British attitude towards the Italo-
Turkish war and to express their sympathy with the Turkish people. Muslims in
India held meetings, passed resolutions and prayed to God. The resentment against
the unprovoked Italian invasion of Tripoli was universal and brought forth a consi¬
derable amount of explosive literature and created an awareness of the international
situation among Muslims in India.^“ It was the U.P. Government which first of all
brought to the notice of the Government of India the effects of the Italo-Turkish
war on the Indian Muslims. On getting information from the U.P. Government, the
Government of India directed the local governments of Madras, Bombay, Bengal,
Bihar and Orissa, Punjab, Central Provinces and North West Frontier Province to
assess the depth of anti-British sentiments caused among the Muslims by the Italo-
Turkish War.'®^ Various Muslim Organisations appealed to the Government of
India to intervene in the War but the British Government declared to remain
neutral. Thereupon, anti-British wave swept away the Muslims who began to think
that there existed a secret Christian coalition, with which Britain was also associated,
to overthrow Muslim powers all over the world.^®® An emergent meeting of the
Council of the All India Muslim League held at Lucknow on October 7, 1911,
passed resolutions sympathising with the Turkish people. The Council of the League
placed on record its deep abhorrence of Italy’s unjustifiable and high-handed action
in Tripoli and sympathised with Turkey in her undeserved troubles and admired her
magoamity and dignified attitude throughout the crisis and appealed to the British
Government to exercise its great influence as the greatest Muslim power and tradi¬
tional ally of Turkey in the cause of peace to put an end to an unjust war. The
Council of the League further advised the Mussulmans in India to keep a dignified
attitude and place implicit confidence in the benevolence and good intentions of the
British Government. The Council appealed to the Muslims to raise subscriptions
for the relief of the sufferers in the war and urged the Muslims throughout the
country to boycott Italian goods^®* of which a list was published as ‘'means of
retaliation**?^’’

Numerous meetings were held all over India to express sympathy with Turkey.

Indian Nationalism and Asia I900’I918

On October 7,1911 the Muslims of Detadi, district Aligarh, prayed to God for
lurk’s victory over Italy and expressed their sincere feelings against the unjust and
hateful aggression of Italy and hoped that the British Government would prevent
the progress of the conflict in the interest of Islam and the Muslim Community.*®®
A mass meeting was held at Kanpur on November 3, 1911, to protest against Italy’s
actions in Tripoli and to ask the British Government to interfere and save the
Turks from injury.*®®

Muslims of Bihar held several meetings to collect money for the Red Crescent
Society but they could not collect large amount. However, they all felt that more
active measures should have been made to save Turkey.**® At a meeting held in
Bihar the Italian invasion of Tripoli was strongly condemned and the Muslims pre¬
sent in the meeting took a vow to boycott Italian goods, to raise subscriptions for
the Turkish sufferers and to co-operate with the Red Crescent Society to do relief
work in Turkey.***

In Punjab the Muslims were very anxious about the fate of Turkey. The Punjab
Muslims believed that England was in league with other European powers in destroy¬
ing Turkey.*®^ The Muslim feeling ran so high in Punjab that widespread resent¬
ment against the Government was apprehended and it was therefore that the Punjab
Government wanted an early termination of the war without causing much
humiliation to Turkey.*®® Meetings were organised in the province to express sym¬
pathy with Turkey. A mass meeting of the Mohammedans held at Lahore expressed
its indignation at Italy’s high-handed action in Tripoli and promised its solidarity
with Turkey. The meeting also urged upon the Muslims of India to boycott Italian
goods.*®*

The Muslims in Madras also expressed their sympathy with the Turks.*®® In
this province some Muslims were moved so much by the tragic tale of Tripoli that
they adopted retaliatory methods and indulged in physical assaults of the Chris¬
tians. A disturbance took place in Changnachery in Travencore State when some
Muslims apparently got out of hand after reading about the Italo-Turkish War in a
local vernacular newspaper and assaulted a number of Christians.*®*

There was a widespread pro-Turkish feeling in the Muslim Community of
Bombay. The Muslims in Bombay Presidency held several meetings to collect fund
for the Red Crescent Society and made several representations to the Government
against Italian atrocities in Tripoli. The province was visited by the emissaries from
Turkey, Egypt and Persia who urged the Muslims to support Turkey and convinced
the Bombay Muslims of British connivance with Italian atrocities in Tripoli. The
papers like Al-Hilal, Zamindar, Watan, Paisa Akhbar, Vakil did a lot to arouse
Muslim feeling in Bombay ***

In Bengal, the Muslims felt alarmed at the Italian activities in Tripoli and
expressed their sympathy with Turkey and criticised British Government for her
neutrality in the War. Numerous meetings were held all over Bengal to sympathise
with the Turks. A branch of the Red Crescent Society was established and large
amount of subscriptions was raised to help the Turks in their hours of trouble.*®*
A largely attended mass meeting of the Mohammedans of Basirhat sub-division
in Bengal expressed sympathy with the Turks engaged in war with Italy and urged
upon the Muslims to boycott Italian goods and expressed sympathy for the woun-

Indian Nationalism and Asia

ded and killed on the side of Turkey. About sixty rupees were collected on the spot
for the relief work in Turkey. The Mussalmans of Mymensingh also expressed their
heartfelt sympathy with the Tuikish people.’*”' Nearly three thousand Muslims,
including leaders like Dr. Suhrawardy, Cossim Ariff and Haji Ahmad, attended a
meeting at Calcutta to express sympathy with Turkey and to condemn Italian action
in Tripoli.*'" On December 23, 1911, a mass meeting of the Muslims was held at
Nebalpur, a village in the sub-division of Basirhat, district 24 Paraganas, and
resolutions protesting against Italian atrocities in Tripoli and expressing sympathy
with the Sultan on account of the unjust attack of Italy on Tripoli were adopted.
The sympathy for the Turkish dead and wounded had become so deep that sponta¬
neous contributions to the relief fund came forth from all sides when the meeting
dispersed. Fortyeight rupees were contributed by the poor Muslims for the relief
fund.”'

The Muslim newspapers and pamphlets raised hue and cry over Italian invasion
of Tripoli and aroused the sentiments of the Indian Muslims in favour of the
Turkish people and Sultan. Important Muslim periodicals in India, notably Al-Hilal
Comrade, Zamindar, Hamdard, and the Aligarh Institute Gazette, supported the
Turkish cause and argued for Muslim unity and solidarity.”^ Muhammad Iqbal,
the great Muslim Poet-Philosopher of India, also lent his voice to the protest,
reading a poem dedicated to the Turkish struggle in Tripoli in the mosques of
India,*’" The Punjab Government held the Zamindar, Vakil and AI-Muin responsible
for propagating Pan Islamic sentiments in Punjab.'^’ The Zamindar became so
much popular with the Muslims that it was converted from a weekly into a daily,
and its circulation went up in a large number. For its bitter attacks on Christian
nations the Government considered the “Zamindar” as the most dangerous from
the political point of view.*'-'’ The Comrade, Zamindar, Paisa Akbbar, Vakil, Al-
tlilal were widely read by the people. A Benaras Pamphlet entitled Ur-in Najaf in
its February issue of 1912 appealed to the Muslims to raise a handsome amount to
help the Turkish people and told the Muslims not to buy the goods produced in the
Christian nations and to give money to the Government for the manufacture of
arms to be used against their co-religionists. This pamphlet urged the Muslims to
unite against the concerted assault of the West on Islam and Turkey.”" The
“Comrade” and many other Muslim papers published special war news and they
were in so much demand by the people that the “Nama-i-Maqaddas Habl-ul-Matin”
turned from a weekly into a daily. The news flashed by these journals influenced
both the educated and the general mass.”'' The “Hablul-Matin” made a passionate
appeal to the Muslims to forge a united front to meet European Challenge and
asked the Government of India to put an end to Italian atrocities in Tripoli,*^** Pro-
Turkish feelings became so deep rooted in the Indian Muslim’s minds that the
Muslim Press warned England of the dire consequences, if she did not change her
policy towards Turkey. The Mohammadi adopted an openly anti-European and
ami-British attitude during the Italo-Turkish War and advocated boycott of Italian
goods. The paper, which was famous for its Pan-Islamic leanings, received an
impetus in its leanings from the war and from supposed British connivance with
Italy in her atrocities in Turkey.”" Another Muslim Journal entitled “Islam Rabi”
asked the government to withdraw its notification of neutrality and allow the

Indian Nationalism and Asia 1900-1918

Muslims to show their sympathy and love for Turkey.^**”

What to say of the Muslims and their press, even the Hindu Press sympathised
with Turkey. But the Hindu Press adopted a moderate view. “The Tribune”
denounced the Italian action in Tripoli but also deprecated the indifTerence of the
Indian Muslims from the affairs of their own country and advised the Muslims not
to boycott Italian goods. Another Hindu paper, the Punjabee, ridiculed the Muslims
for their loyalty to the British Raj which was a fair whether friend likely to desert
the Muslims after making use of them.^®^ Of course, the Hindu papers were sym¬
pathetic towards Turkey and admitted that the Indian Muslims had a just cause for
anger but unlike the Muslim papers, they did not approve of the anti-government
movement on this account and asked the Indian Mu.slims to desist from all agita¬
tion causing embarrasment to the Government.'®- The Hindu papers in the province
of Eastern Bengal and Assam condemned the war and justified the stand taken by
the Indian Muslims but advised the Muslims to desist from boycott of Italian
goods.’®' “The Mahratta” criticised European neutrality in face of naked aggression
of Italy in Turkey. The “Political Bhomiyo” made scathing attack on the alleged
conspiracy of the European powers to destroy Islam. “The “Indian Social Refor¬
mer held the view that Europeans were sympathetic to the constitutional demo¬
cratic movements in Asian countries because they wanted to promote their selfish
interests by fostering confusion in these countries.""

The various meetings held and numerous resolutions pas.sed at those meetings
.symbolised the deep sorrow of the Indian Muslims over Italian invasion of Tripoli
and the British policy of neutrality. These actions of the Indian Muslims also
reflected the profound sympathy for Turkey and the deep rooted Pan-Islamic ten¬
dencies in the Indian Muslims. In fact, the Italo-Turkish war resulted in an
organised and sustained Pro-Turkish movement and accentuated the Pan-Islamic
tendency of the It.dian Muslims.'®" Whereas Pro-Turkish feeling in Indian Muslims
was to a degree the result of the Pan lslamic sentiments, the sympathy expressed by
Hindus and their newspapers for Turkey were the by products of the Pan-Asiatic
tendency which was developing in India To the Hindus, Turkey represented an
Asiatic power and hence they expressed their solidarity with the Turks who were
inter-locked in a war with a European power.

The years 1912 and 1913 gave a boost to the Pan lslamic movement in India.
Hardly the wounds of the Italian invasion had cured that Turkey was stormed by
another crisis of magnitudes Montenegro, Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia attacked
Turkey. The war popularly known as the Fir^ Balkan war st arted in^ October. Ji I12
and continued upto May, I 9J 3, and resulted in defeat and loss of territory to Turkey.
The Turks would have been driven completely out of Europe had not the victors
quarrelled among themselves over the spoils. Bulgaria, which had contributed most
to the defeat of Turkey, wanted all Macedonia, a demand which did not please her
allies who attacked Bulgaria and found willing helpers in the Turks. In th is scroml
j ^kan war (June July. 1913 1 fought by Bulgaria against Greece, Serbia, Rumania
and Turkey, the Turks recovered Adrianopic.’®** Great Britain adopted a neutral
policy throughout the war, despite the repeated requests made by the Indian
Muslims to intervene in the intere.st of Turkey. The neutral stand of Great Britain
caused resentment against the British Rule and widened the scope of Pan-lslamism

Indian Nationalism and Asia

in India. The Balkan wars caused widespread anxiety among the Indian Muslims as
regards the British and convinced the Muslims of the Machiavellian trait in British
diplomacy and they were led to feel that the British professions of friendship were
insincere.^'** The Conquest of Morocco by France, the seizure of Bosnia-Herozogo-
vina by Austria, the Italian invasion on Tripoli and the Balkan wars compelled the
Indian Muslims to think that there was a sinister conspiracy amongst the Western
Countries to swallow up Turkish integrity. Indian Muslims began to think that the
Christian powers ofEurope were determined to destroy the Ottoman Empire and
the Caliphate, the last vestige of the past Islamic glory. The fate of Turkey espe¬
cially excited the Indian Muslims and stimulated anti-European feelings'*’^ in their
hearts. The progress of the unfortunate events in Balkan states was anxiously
watched by those sections of the community which were ordinarily unmoved by
political events.^** The Muslims of North India eagerly watched the every move in
the game in the Balkans and every reference to the subjects made by British politi¬
cians.^®® In fact, the Balkan wars produced intense reaction among the Indian
Muslims, especially in articulate section of the Muslim Community.^”® The dis¬
memberment of Turkey evoked widespread regret in which some non-Muslims also
shared; the fate of Muslim states and the treatment method out to them by Europe
made the deepest and most painful impression on every mind.’®’ The war came to
be regarded as *‘the ultimatum of Europe’s temporal aggression”^®- and created an
atmosphere of restlessness in the Indian Muslims. The longdreaded trouble in the
Balkans -‘‘a life and death struggle between the leading Asiatic power and four
minor kingdoms of Eastern Europe”,'®® excited the Indian Muslims who held
several meetings in the various parts of India and passed resolutions denouncing
the Balkan States and prayed for the speedy recovery of the Porte.'®' “The Balkan
Wars” wrote Jawahar Lai Nehru, “roused an astonishing wave of sympathy in the
Muslims of India and all Indians felt that anxiety and sympathy”.'®®

Muslims in Bihar and Orissa expressed their sympathy with the Turks and held
meetings at Patna, Ranchi, Hazaribagh, Cbapra and other important towns to raise
subscriptions for the Turkish aid fund. Maulana Mazhar-ul-Haq in a meeting held
at Bankipore on July 13, 1913 delivered an extremely inflamatory speech.'®® In the
United Provinces the Muslims sympathy for Turkey was very widespread. On
December 13, 1912 in a meeting held at Lucknow, the Aga Khan appealed to the
audience to contribute to the funds opened in the aid of Turkey and he himself
contributed one thousand rupees.'®’ Sympathy for Turkey had become so deep rooted
that even the Muslim students of M.A.O. College, Aligarh effected savings by cur¬
tailing their diet in order to send money to. the Turks.'®® A society of the “Servants
of Caaba” was established in Lucknow in 1913 to protect the interests of Islam
throughout the world and particularly to protect the Holy cities of Islam from fall¬
ing into the hands of the non-Islamic powers.'®® Its secretary, Shaukat Ali, also
planned to send volunteers to fight on the side of Turkey.®"® Pro-Turkish and the
anti-Christian feeling ran so high in the United Province that a number of tomb¬
stones and crosses at the Christian cemetery at Moradabad were damaged.*®' The
agitation in favour of Turkey and against the British reached such a height that the
situation in U.P. seemed to be thoroughly unsatisfactory to the authorities.*®*

The Muslims in Bengal were much ahead than their counterparts in other pro-

Indian Nationalism and Asia 1900-1918

vinces in their sympathy with the Turks. The British Government was severely con¬
demned for her pro-Balkan League attitude. Some newspapers, particularly “al-
Hilal,” reminded the Muslims of their religious duties towards the Caliph. Some¬
times even Jehad was preached.®®^ Numerous mass meetings in support of Turkey
were held and collections were made to help the Turkish people and at these meet¬
ings the speakers emphasised that the war was a struggle between Cross and Cres¬
cent.*®^ In Calcutta alone, Muslims organised several mass meetings where anti-
Turkish attitude to the British was criticised and resolutions expressing solidarity
with Turkey were passed.*®® Anti- British feeling became so deep in the Muslims of
Bengal that the more advanced sections of the Muslim Community advocated a
Hindu-Muslim coalition and championed the cause of the Hindu Coingress party.*®®
It was apprehended by the Government that the Balkan War would bring the
Young Muslim party closer to the Congress.*"*

Pro-Turkish and anti-British feeling was not so high in Madras*"® and in the
Central Provinces,*"" as in other Provinces. Nevertheless the Muslims were sympa¬
thetic to the Turkish people. The Balkan war created a stir among the Punjab
Muslims. The journalists, lawyers, teachers and literateurs condemned the anti-
Turkish attitude of the European powers and showed their concern over the satis¬
faction expressed by the British ministers on the success of the Balkan allies.**" In
the North West Frontier Province the Pro-Turkish feeling was very feeble and sym¬
pathy for Turkey was expressed by a small section of educated men who were in
close touch with the Muslim League and with Mohammed Ali and Zafar Ali, the
editors of Comrade and Zamindar respectively.*** The Muslims of the Bombay pro¬
vince were deeply shocked to learn the British hostile attitude towards Turkey and
made generous contribution to the Turkish aid fund.*** A public meeting of the
Muslims of Bombay held under the presidentship of Currimbhoy Ebrahira and
passed resolutions sympathising with Turkey.*** Prayers were offered at Lahore for
the victory of the Turkish arms and subscriptions were raised in aid of Turkish
Relief Fund. A Muslim bank, namely Orient Bank of India proposed to sell its
shares amounting to two crore rupees to the public and give the amount realised
as a loan to the Turkish Government.***

Pro-Turkish and anti-British moves reached the climax in 1912 when a Medical
Mission organised under Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari was sent to Turkey as a
token of Indian Muslim's solidarity with Turkey. Maulana Mohammed Ali collected
necessary money for the despatch of the mission to render valuable service to the
suffering Turks. Indian Muslims had so deep sympathy for Turkey that even the
poor subscribed to the funds of the Medical Mission.**® Muslim writers and poets.
Journals and Press and Muslim religious and political leaders expressed their
unanimous sympathy for the Turks. Muslim Journals like the Comrade and the
Zamidar strongly supported Turkey against her European adversaries and openly
preached Pan-Islamism. Zafar Ali Khan, the editor of the Zamindar^ collected
money for the Turkish Red Crescent Society and proceeded to Constantinople to
present the money to the Grand Vizier. For the inflammatory tone of its articles the
security of his paper was confiscated by the government.*** Mohammed Ali denou¬
nced the anti-Turkish policy of the British and preached the gospel of Pan-
Islamism.**’ Indian Muslim’s passionate sympathy for Turkey could be gleaned

Indian Nationalism and Asia

from the fact that when the Bulgars reached near the city of Constantinople,
Mohammed Ali, out of his helplessness and utter frustration at the sight of the
misfortune of Islam and Turkey, thought of committing suicide.-^®

Anti-British feeling be.-ame such a common feature with the Indian Muslims
that they lost their faith in the sincerity of the government. The British Prime
Minister Lord Asquith’s speech at the Guldhall banquet on November 9,1912 in
which he predicted the early fall of Turkey was bitterly criticised by the Muslim
Press in India.All the British politicians, who welcomed the success of the Balkan
states, were denounced--® and the statement of Lord Asquith affected the Indian
Muslinis profoundly. Lord Hardinge was “bombarded with telegrams of protests,'^'^^
and he was disturbed that the young Muslims were getting out of bands'^-- and were
creating a separatist tendency away from Aligarh in the minds of the moderate
Muslinis.—* What to speak of the condemnation of the British officials, even Aga
Khan's counsel of moderation published in Times of India on February 14, 1913 and
his advice to the Muslims to bring England and Turkey closer through their loyal
efforts were condemned and rejected by the young Muslims who rebuked the Aga
Khan as an enemy of Islam and a slave of the British.Maulana Azad criticised
the pro-British attitude of some of the leaders of the Aligarh school and referred to
them as those heretics and hypocrities who, during the last forty years, had co-ope¬
rated with the satans of Europe to weaken the influence of Islamic Caliphaie and
Pan-Islam Some extremists among the Muslims advocated boycott of European
goods. Leakat Hussain, a prominent Muslim leader of Calcutta, and the few other
Muslim leaders of Calcutta and the few Muslim papers like Muhammadi and Al-
Hiial also urged the Muslims to boycott European goods “■'* Timely action by the
Government and the lack of organisation among the Muslims stood in the way of
the successful boycott.'*-’ Some Muslims attempted to raise loans on the security of
the Turkish bonds issued by the Ottoman Treasury. Mohammed Ali supported this
move,—® but the Government of India opposed it and dissuaded Indian ruling chiefs
from accepting these bonds, for, in its opinion, there was no adequate security for
the payment of money raised through them

Indian Muslims were assisted in their sympathy for Turkey by their Hindu
brethren. Whereas the Muslims were actuated by Pan-Islamic ideas in their support
and sympathy for Turkey, the Hindus in India supported the Turks because they
were Asiatics To the Hindus, the Balkan War was a struggle between an Asiatic
country and European nations. Indian nationalist leaders expressed their sympathy
for Turkey because she was an Asiatic power. A public meeting of the Hindus and
Muslims was held at Calcutta, on November 3, 1912 to express solidarity with
Turkey. Although it was a crowded meeting the Mohammedans were not largely
represented. Bipin Chandra Pal presided over the meeting, Leakat Hussain address¬
ing the meeting urged the boycott of European goods and made a fervent appeal
for funds m aid of sufferers in Turkey. Dr. Abdul Gafoor, another speaker, declared
that the Balkan War had threatened Islam in Europe and the duty of Muslims did
not end in merely sending money to the Red Crescent Society. “The duty of the
Mohammedans in Bengal, nay, the whole of India,” Dr Gafoor pointed out, “con¬
sisted in strengthening Turkey and weakening their enemies and that could only be
done by boycotting European goods.” Speaking on the occasion Babu Shyam

Indian Nationalism and Asia 1900-1918

Sunder Chakravarty observed that “the decline of the political ascendancy of Tur¬
key meant the destruction of an ancient culture and civilisation.” He, however,
hoped that the results of the war would have great effects on '"Asian solidarity" and
emphasised the necessity of unity between Hindus and Muslims in India. This
disaster of Turkey, he emphatically stated, “would go a long way in making a
solidarity among the different nations of Asia.”-^" Bipin Chandra Pal in his presi- U
dential address declared that the meeting was a call from the Indian nationalism for j
Turkish nationalism and made an appeal for raising funds to help t ^e Turks.’^^^j
Hindus’ support for Turkey caused a concern to the government and'tjardmge in
his letter to Crew informed that in Bengal Hindu “agitators” intervened “to provoke
and foment Mohammedan resentment” against the British.-'*®

The Indian National Congress also shared the sorrows of the Muslim brethren
in India and expressed its concern over the fate of Turkey and emphasised the need
for the peaceful settlement of the disputes. Mazhar-ul-Haq, the Chairman of the
Reception Committee of the twenty-seventh session of the Indian National Congress,
declared that the Balkan war was not a war against the Turks but a war to turn
Muslims out of Europe, a war between the Cross and Crescent and a war between
the Asiatics and the Europeans.®®® He further criticised the British policy of indiffe¬
rence to the Muslim cause and pointed out that this attitude for the British minis¬
ters had deeply offended the sentiments of the seventy millions of Mussulmans of
India,®®'* Rao Bahadur R.N. Mudholkar, the president of the twenty-seventh
session of the Indian National Congress, expressed profound sorrow and sympathy
which the Hindus and all non-Muslim Indians felt for their Muslim brethren in the
great misfortune that had overtaken the Caliphate and added that as a subject of
Great Britain which was neutral in the war, it was not proper for him to take sides
between the belligerents but “as staunch believers in the supremacy of the moral
law and upholders of the principle of peaceful evolution, this much I believe is
permissible to us to say,” declared the president, “that it is possible to satisfy the
just and the legitimate aspirations of the Christian provinces of the Turkish Empire
without destroying the existence or the importance of Turkey or subjecting her to
the humiliating condition of powerlessness.”®®'’ Nawab Syed Muhammad, the presi¬
dent of the twenty-eight session of the Indian National Congress, also pointed out
that the disastrous results caused by the Balkan War had unnerved the Indian
Muslims and the dismemberment of Turkey by depriving her of her European
provinces had evoked widespread regret in which non-Muslims also shared. He
further declared that the defeat of turkey, w'hile it had caused intense grief and
depression to the Islamic world, had at the same time brought Muslims closer
together in a way that nothing else was capable of doing.®®® The intense heat of Pan-
Islamic tendency did not leave the Aga Khan unmoved. Even the Aga Khan wrote
in 1914 :

“For more than two years past the Moslems of India, in common with their
co-religionists in other countries, have been going through the most painful
experience. The Turkish loss of sovereignty in Northern Africa and in the Bal¬
kans, the continued disintegration of Persia, the treatment of Indians in South
Africa, and certain matters of Indian administration, have all deeply affected
Indian Moslems. The Mohammedans of India, newly awakened to national

Indian Nationalism and Asia

consciousness by the education England has given them, not limited in their
gaze by the vast ramparts of the Himalayas or by the waters of the Indian
Ocean. There is between them and their fellow-believers in other lands essential
unity, which breaks through differences of the sect and country, for it is not
based on religious grounds only . ... They share the glorious heritage not only
of the Koran .. but of the history and philosophy of Arabia, the incomparable
poetry of Persia, the romances and legends of Egypt and Morocco and Spain.
Drinking from these imperishable springs, Moslems, whether Turks, Persians,
Arabi, or Indians, and whether or not they have also come to the Western
walls of knowledge, are bound together by a certain unity of thought, of
sentiment, and of expression.”'^*’

Turkey also felt obliged for the immense sympathy and support expressed by
the Indian Muslims. Early in 1914 Khalid Beg, the Turkish Consul-General, visited
Lahore and presented to the Badshahi Mosque a carpet, sent by the Sultan of
Turkey as token of his gratitude to the Muslims of India. Soon after two Turkish
doctors of the Red Crescent Society visited Punjab and succeeded in pulling some
Muslims to the Turkish side.**®

In the beginning of 1914 it seemed that a war would break out in Europe. The
Indian Muslims began to review their attitude in case of a war between Turkey and
Britain. Mohammed Ali thought that in the event of a war between Britain and
Turkey, he and his followers would have to take sides and that they would certainly
support Turkey. When the First World War occured and Britain declared war on
^Germany on August 4, 1914 the Muslims of India found themselves in a dilemma.
/On August 31, 1914 Mohammed Ali sent a wire to the Sultan of Turkey in which
/ he urged the Sultan of Turkey either to support Britain or to keep neutral in this
'.war.**® Turkey joined Germany against Britain on November 4, 1914. The Muslims
became puzzled and what to do was the problem before them. Mohammed Ali and
his followers ranged themselves with Turkey against the British Raj. In May, 1915,
Mohammed Ali and his brother Shaukat Ali were arrested for openly justifying
Turkey’s entry into the war against Britain and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was
also placed under surveillance at Ranchi for his Pro-Turkish attitude.**®

Even during the stormy days of the First World War some of the Indian natio¬
nalists did much to co-ordinate their freedom struggle with other Asian nations to
get foreign assistance to wipe out the British Raj. Some of the Indian revolutionaries
approached the German Government for arms and monetary assistance which was
granted to them Raja Mahendra Pratap and Barakatullah along with Dy , Y pp
Hentjg, German Legation Secretary, c^e to Kabufand persuaded the Amir of
Afghanistan to invade India. This mission, on its way to Kabul, was given grand
reception in Turkey. Raja Mahendra Pratap addressed a meeting at Istanbul and
the Sultan handed him a letter for the Amir of Afghanistan. Barakatullah also got a
fatwa from Sheikh-uMslam asking the Indian Muslims to co-operate with the
Hindus.**^ When the mission reached Afghanistan the members were lodged in
quarters within Bahar Garden as the Amir of Afghanistan had promised Lord
Hardinge, the then Viceroy of India, that the aliens entering his kingdom would be
disarmed and their activities would be restricted.*** But the restrictions on the
mission were lifted when the members of the mission went on hunger strike.***

Mian Nationalism and Asia 1900-1918

While the Indian revolutionaries were making efforts to win over Afghanistan
on the side of Nationalist India, some Muslim students left India in F^hmary ,
and proceeded to Kabul where they were detained but wpr<» rplp aseH op thft
recommendation of Sardar Nasrullah Khan, the Afghan Ain ir’s b rother, and thera -
after.th^ camcjn touch with the Indian revDluti onary leaders w orking in Afghanis-
tanJ^^® In August, 1 915, Maulana Ob eiduHah Sind hi, a disciple of the Deoband j
School, proceededTO Afghanistan to ruFn the British Government with the help of
Afghanistan and became successful in enlisting support for India in Afghanistan.
Obeidullab along with Mahendra Pratap, M uhammad Mian Ansari and Barkatullah
held several meetings with the Amir of Ai^anistan which resulted in the formation
of the Provisional ( ^vernment of India on December 1. 1915 . Raja Mahendra
^atap becamc^TtTPresident, Barkatullah was made Prime Minister and Obeidullah
was appointed Home Minister so that when the British Government was ousted
from India there would be no dilTiculty in taking over the administration."^® This
Provisional Government dealt directly with the Afghan Government and even a
treaty was drawn up between the two. With the help of Sardar Nasrullah Khan, the
Provisional Government organised an array of twelve hundred tribal youths for
making India free."'*^ The Afghan rulers Amir Habibullah Khan, and, to a greater
extent, his successor Amamullah Khan, were secretly in sympathy with this Provi¬
sional Government of India."^® Habibullah, though in sympathy with the programme
of the Indian revolutionaries, maintained a neutral policy and was able to avoid
any clash with the British.-*” Thi s Provision al Governm ent se at^two. missions, one
to Japan and another to Turke y. Sheikh Abdul Kadir and Dr. Mathura Singh
led the mission to Japan and Abdul Bari and Dr. Shujullah went on Turkish
mission but the members of both the missions were arrested and the plan could not
succeed.^'®

Shortly after Obeidullah left India for Kabul, Maulana_ Mahmud Ha san^ the
liead ^.flu ivi of the Deoban(i.School^ alo ng _wilh.Mim,Aosari andLXe.W..QthcrsJcft
Ijor Hyaz to make a direct contact wi th the Turkish Government and to seek mate¬
rial help fo7~th^ pl an against the British Rule. During his stay at Hejaz Maulana
Mahmu'd'Hiian met the Turkish MinisteFof war, Anwar Pasha and Gleneral Jamal
Pasha and told them about his revolutionary movement and asked them forTielp.
At his request three documents in Arabic, Persian and Turkish signed by Anwar
Pasha and Jamal Pasha were handed over to him. They bad the same contents,
expressed in different languages sympathising with the Indian demand for indepen¬
dence and promising help to it,"®^ j ^an An sari proceeded with this document
known as Ghalibnama--J:o Kabul-aftd-m£L_Qhd4ullab _ there . Obeidullah wrote a
long letter to Mahmud Hasan urging him to secure the active co-operation of the
Turkish Government and of the Sheriff of Mecca, and describing the scheme of a
Pan-Islamic army—the “Army of God”—with headquarters at Medina, and subor¬
dinate Commands at Constantinople, Tehran and Kabul, These letters were dated
July, 9, 1916 and were addressed to an agent in Sindh with instructions to forward
by a reliable messenger to Mahmud Hasan. These letters were written on pieces of
silk cloth and they were carried to India by a family servant of two students who
had left Lahore and gone to Kabul. The servant met the father of the two boys
with their news and the father handed over the letters to the British authorities,

Indian Nationalism and Asia

who got valuable information as to the sympathisers in India, interned about a
do 2 *n persons and took other necessary preventive steps. Thus, the Silk Letters
' Conspiracy, an attempt of the Indian revolutionaries to ruin fltTBi^sh Raj with
the help of other Asian nations, came to a miserable end.®®®

Meanwhile Indian Muslims heard the news of the revolt of the Sheriff of Mecca
against the Turkish Empire. The news caused considerable anxiety among the
Muslims of India. Anxiety became more profound and vocal when it was known
that the British were instrumental in bringing in this rebellion against the Turkish
Empire. At first the news was not believed by the Muslims and Abdul Bari, the
president of the Indian Pan-I.damists Organisation “Anjuman-i-Khuddam-i-Kaaba”,
who was a personal friend of the Grand Sheriff, disbelieved the news and with a
view to verify it he proposed to send a deputation of Indian Muslims which was
also to act as a peacemaker between the Arabs and the Turks but the proposal did
not materialise.-®* Throughout India the Muslims condemned the action of the
Sheriff. An emergent meeting of the Council of the All India Muslim League held
at Lucknow on June 26, 1916 placed on record its deep abhorrence of the action of
the Arab rebels headed by the SheiilT of Mecca and condemned them and their
sympathisers as enemies of Islam.*’®®

A public meeting was held at Lucknow on June 27,1916 and a resolution
disclaiming the report of the Statesman, an English owned-paper, that Indian Mus¬
lims welcomed the revolt was passed.®®® It was generally believed that Britain was
responsible for the Sheriff’s treachery and Muslims of Bombay and Calcutta dis¬
approved of the actions of the Sheriff.®®’ Mohammed Ali Jinnah warned the British
Government not to interfere with the future of the Caliphate because this would
lead to the dissatisfaction among the Muslims of India and reminded the British
Government that “the loyalty of the Mussalraans of India to the Government is no
small asset”.-’®®

Muslims of Delhi condemned the Sheriff for endangering the safety of the
holy places by hi.s action.-'®** Oa July 6, .916 a meeting was held under the presi¬
dentship of Shamsul ulema Sayed Ahmad, who was con.sidered to be most loyal to
the British, and a resolution was passed expressing confidence that the British
Government would keep to the very letter the promise with regard to the Holy
Places held out to the Muslims at the beginning of the war.'®®'* The local unit of the
Muslim League and the Central Mohammedan Association of Calcutta held meetings
to express their views on the Arab revolt and the Muslim League passed a resolu¬
tion condemning the Sheriff and his sympathisers.®®* At a meeting held at Dacca
the Sheriff was condemned as a “traitor”.*’®® Muslim feelings in the North West
Prontier Provinces and the neighbouring areas of Kanpur and Lucknow ran very
high and the Government found indications of trouble in Delhi, Bombay and
Calcutta In Lahore, a group of the Punjab Muslim League passed a resolution
condemning the Sheriff’s action®®' and the Vakil, Kisan and Alsar published articles
condemning the Sheriff’s revolt and also warned the British against lending aid to
the Sheriff in maintaining his independence.®®® Abdul Bari, the president of the
Anjuman i-Khudi^am i Kaaba sent a telegram to the Viceroy condemning the action
of the Sheriff “the impudent besieger of the tomb of the Holy Prophet and his
sympathisers” who were the “enemies of Islam”.®®® The Nizam of Hyderabad and

Indian Nationalism and Asia 1900-1918

the Begum of Bhopal refrained from expressing their resentment at the Sheriff’s
action but they also did not come out in support of the Sheriff’s action.""’

A study of the Indian National Movement and its attitude towards Asian
people during 1900 and 1918 would reveal that India evinced considerable interest
in Asian countries. Of course, the Indian nationalist leaders were awefully busy with
their demands for self-government and their whole energy was mobilised to secure
it. Nevertheless, they did not remain aloof from the currents of developments in the
Asian continent. The Indian National Congress openly criticised the British expan¬
sionist policy in Asia and expressed sympathy with Asian countries in hours of
distress. Nationalist India shared the pleasure of the achievements of Japan and the
latter became a model for India. India’s concern for Persia, China, Burma and other
Asian countries indicated the growth of Asian coii-sciousness. Indians in general and
the Muslims of India in particular stood as one man against Italy and Balkan
powers when they were interlocked in war with Turkey. Beyond doubt, Indian
Muslims in their sympathy with Turkey were, to a considerable degree, working
under the influence of Pan-lslamic ideas and religious sentiments. But to the Hindus
and to the Indian National Congress Turkey was an Asiatic power and thus while
championing the cause of Turkey they thought of championing the cause of Asia
against Europe. In other words, in Indian atmosphere pan-Islamism was converted
into Pan-Orientahsm by the Indian nationalists. Thus, Asianism as a marked
feature of Indian nationalist thinking had emerged during the years 1900-18.

Indian Nationalism and Asia

REFERENCES

^Surcndra Nath Bancrjee, Speeches of BtJ>u Surendra Nath Banerjee, Vol. VI. (Calcutta,
1908) p. 327.

®Oopal Krishna Gokhale, Speeches of the Honourable G. K, Gokhale (Madras, 1920) p. 915.
'•^Report of the Twenty-First Indian National Congress, (1905), p. 13.

^Lord Hardinge, My Indian Years : Reminisceness, (London, 1948), p. 115
®Lady Minto, India, Minto and Morley {1905-1910), (London, 1935), p. 298.

’’Haridas and Uma Mukherjee, Sri Aurobindo's Political Thought (Calcutta, 1958) pp. 63*123.
’M. A. Buch, Rise and Growth of Indian Militant Nationalism p. 25.

®Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Two Remarkable Speeches (Sylhct, 1907) p. 6.

®Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Writings and Speeches (Madras, 1907) p. 56

*“W.T. de Bary, Sources of Indian Tradition, p. 722-

J^B.C. Pal, Speeches Delivered at Madras (Madras, 1907) p. 21.

^^’Lajpat Rai, “The Coming Indian National Congress—Some Suggestions*’ Kayastha Sama-
cAar, November 1901, pp. 376-85.

i^Lajpat Rai, “The Principles of Political Congress”, East and West, \ugust, 1902. Vo). 1.
p. 1040.

^^Punjab Native Newspaper Reports 1900-1921, Paisa Akbhar, December 12 and 13, 1905.
^•'Report of the Sedition Committee, 1918, Chapter 11.

^®Surendranath Banerjee, A Nation in Making, p. 187.

^’’Report of the Twenty Second Indian National Congress, p. 83
w/AW., pp. 87-89.

’“N.C. Sen Gupta, “The Boycott Movement”, The Indian Review, May, 1909, p. 351.

^^Report of the Twenty Second Indian National Congress, p. 83.

^^The Bengalee, December 7, 1907.

^^Aurobindo Ghose, An Open Letter to His Countrymen, p. 4.

28C-Y. Chintamani, Indian Politics Since the Mutiny (London, 1940) p. 79.

Bhima Sankara Roy, The 22nd Indian National Congress, 1907, l.O.L. Tract, 1028.
2*Ambika Charan Majumdar, Indian National Evolution, pp. 108-24. See M.R. Jayakar, The
Story of My Life, Vol. I (Bombay, 1958) p. 82.

*«N.V. Rajkumar, Development of the Congress Constitution (New Delhi, All India Congress
Committee, 1949) pp. 14-15.

*’Rajendra Prasad, India Divided, p, 87,

2®R.S, Wasti, Minto and the Indian Nationalist Movement, 1905-1910, (Oxford, 1964) p. 29.
8®Quoted in B.N. Pandey

s<*H.G. Rawlison. in The British Achievement in India (London, 1948) pp. 185-86-
’’Lady Minto, India, Minto and Morley, p. 47.

’’Afzal Iqbal, (ed) Select Writings and Speeches of Maulana Muhammad Alt (Lahore, Ashraf,
1944) p. 255.

’’Rajendra Prasad, India Divided, pp. 112-13.

3*rAe Amrita Bazar Patrika, October 4, 1906.

’’John Buchan. Lord Minto : A Memoir, p, 224.

’®MorIey’s letter to Minto, dated October 26, 1906, Lady Minto, op. cit., pp. 47-48.

’’M.S. Jain, The Aligarh Movement, its Origin and Development, pp. 153-54.

’*S. Razi Wasti, op. cit., p. 76.

’•Lady Minto, op. cit., pp. 47-48.

®®Rajendra Prasad, op. cit., pp. 112-15.

•’Ramsay MacDonald, Awakening of India, p. 176,

•®B.L. Grover, British Policy Towards Indian Nationalism, p. 88.

•’AB. Rajput, Muslim League Yesterday and Today, (Lahore, Ashraf, 1948) pp. 19-20.

•®S.R. Mehrotra, India and the Common Wealth, p. 181.

•’Nawab Viquar-ul-Mulk’s statement. Cited in Ram Gopal, Indian Muslims: A Political
History, pp. 101-2,

Indian Nationalism and Asia 1900-1918

**Report of the Twenty-Ninth Indian National Congress, 1914, p. 1.

^^Chowdhury Khaliquzztmao, Pathway to Pakistan (1961) p. 28.

*‘^Reporton Indian Constitutional Reforms, 1918 (London, 1918) p. 5.

^^Valentine Chirol, India, Old and New (London, 1921) pp. 159-60.

BOAndrews and Mukherjee, op. cit., pp. 259-61.

®^Khalid B. Sayeed, Pakistan: The Formative Phase 1857-1958. (i%8) p. 45-
*mid. p. 39.

63rAe Times of India, December 30, 1916, January 1 and 2,1917-

s4Sukuniar Rajan Das, “Tagore and Indian Nationalism”, Indian Review—Vo\. XXXXV,
1944, p. 10.

3^Sisir Kumar Mitra, op. cit., p. 251.
s®Werner Levi, op. cit., p. 19.

®^Cited in Sisir Kumar Mitra, op. cit., 251.

*®Satyapal and Prabodh Chandra, Sixty Years of Congress, p. 152.

^^Report of the Proceedings of the Nineteenth Indian National Congress, 1903, (1904)
p. 24.

^'^India, No. 309 (New Series), December 4, 1903-
Report of the Twentieth Indian National Congress, 1904. p. 44.

®^Lord Curzon in India-Speeches, Vol. 11. (London, 1906) p. 222.

^^The Amrita Bazar Patrika, February 18,1905.

®*Sukumar Ranjan Das, "Tagore and Indian Nationalism", Indian Review; Vol. XXXXV,
1944, p. 10.

^^The Hindustan Review and Kayastha Samachar, Vol. IX (New Series, Allahabad, 1904)
p. 299.

«®r//c Indian Review, Vol. VI, 1905, p 272.

®^Cited in R.P. Dua, The Impact of the Russo-Japanese (1905), tVar on Indian Politics (New
Delhi, 1966) p. 23.

Bangalee, March 26, 1905.

®®J.L, Nehru, Glimpses of the World History (New York, 1942) p. 834.

’“J.L. Nehru, An Autobiography (New Delhi, 1962) p. 16.

’*D.G. Karve, (ed) Speeches and Writings of Gopal Krishan Gokhle, Vol. 11. (Bombay, 1966).
p. 178.

’20.K. Gokhle, "Self-Government for India", Asiatic Quarterly Review, New Series 3, XXII,
1906, p. 243.

’^Gopal Krishna Gokhle, Speeches of the Hon’ble G.K. Gokhle, p. 819.

O. Tilak, Writings and Speeches, p, 330.

’•''Ram Gopal, Lokmanya Tilak : A Biography (Bombay, 1956) p. 285.

’®Vartao Gregorian, The Emergence of Modern Afghanistan, (1969) p. 209.

”D. Mackenzie Brown, J/n/MA Po/<//ca/ Thought : From Ranode to Bhave (\96\), pp. 8-9,
and 72.

’®Paul F. Power, Gandhi on World Affairs, pp. 56-57.

’®ChamanlaI, Secrets of Japan (1937), p. 20.

®®Lovett, A History of the Iruiian Nationalist Movement (London, 1921), p. 237.

®i Viscount Morley, Recollections, Vol. II, p. 154.

“2R.G. Pradhan, India's Struggle for Swaraj, p. 75.

•2C.F. Andrews, The Renaissance in India, (London, 1912), p- 4.

®*16W., pp. 5-6.

®®77ie Daily Hitavadi, June 12,1905.

*®rAe Amrita Bazar Patrika, January 14,1905.

8’rAe Sultan (Calcutta), March 24, 1905.

88Pratijna, Cited in R.P. Dua, op. cit., pp. 51-52.

®®77ie Bffltgflfee, February 8, 1905.

WQuoted in Lancelot Lawton, Empire in the Far East, Vol. II (London, 1912) p. 806.

•i/Wd.

Indian Nationalism and Asia

^-Congress Presidential Addresses, 1911-1934, Second Series, pp. 311*12.

Report on the Native Newspapers of Bengal, p. 587.

^^Ibid.

Valentine Chirol, India, p. 113.

®*R.C. Majumdar, “The Cienesis of Exixcmhm", The Studies in the Bengal Renaissance {td)
by Atulchandra Gupta, (Jadavpur, 1958) p- 201.

®’Lovet(, A History of the Indian Nationalist Movement, p. 229.

®®John Gumming (ei), Political India, p. 54 and 228.

®®R.P. Dua, op. cit., p. 89.

^‘"’Tripura Hitaishi (Comilla), June 20.1905, in Report on the Native Newspapers of Bengal,
pp. 632-33.

to* Vartan Gregorian, «/., p 209.

K'-TV/e Bengalee, June 12, 1905.

i‘«Sant Nihal Singh, "Indian Students in Japan," Indian Review, September 1906, p. 673.

^o'lhid.

10)Valentine Chirol, Indian Unrest, p. 148.

J"®R,P. Dua, op. eit., p. ol.

Indian Review, July, 1906, p. 550.
i*'8R:im Gopal, Lokmanya Tdak, p. 233
Japan Weekly Mail, May 5, 1906.

n«Shun Saitoh (ed) Japan and India (Kyobashi Tokyo, 1912), pp- 220-27.

Dames A. B- Scherer,/apow’.v Advance (Tokyo, 1934) pp. 99-102.
i*-Shun Saitoh, (ed) Japan and India, p. 300.

^^'^Tlie Indian Review, Vol. VllI, June 1907, p. 480.

\^Wie Bengalee, June 15, 1905.

ii‘)Ramananda Chatterjee, (ed). Towards Home Rule (Calcutta, 1917) Part I, p. 147.
p. 148.

'Incited in East (Calcutta) July 16, 1905.
iiSLancelot Lawton, op. cit,, p. 807.
no.S’flnymwr, (Calcutta), November 27, 1905.

i-®Ramananda Chatterjee (ed). Towards Home Rule, Part II, pp. 97-98.

i-iShun Saitoh, op. eit., p. 1.

vi-The Japan Weekly Mail, April 7, 1S)06.

y^'iThe Bengalee, January 12, 1905.

Vi^The Japan Weekly Mail, April 78, 1906.
i^’>Ibid., May 26, 1906.

126 / 6 /d.

istQuoted in Lancelot Lawton, op. cit., p. 805.
i 28 Quoied in R.P. Dua, op. cit., p. 54.
p. 49.

laOQgaia Taketora, “Mitsuru Toyama”, Contemporary Japan, July 1940, Vol. IX, No. 7,
p. 819.

laiValcntine Chirol, op. eit., p. 147.

132 VI M. Ahluwalia, Freedom Struggle in India, 1858-1909 (Delhi, 1965) p. 204.

i33irving S. Friedman, ‘Indian Nationalism and the Far East." Pacific Affairs, No. XllI,

March, 1940. p. 18.
lujbid.

135D.B- Mathur, Gokhle, A Political Biography, pp. 210-19.
issRuchi Ram Sahni, The Awedeeningof Asia (Lahore, 1929) p. 28.

W’D.N- Verma, '’Indian and Asian Solidarity, 1900-1939," J.B.R.S., Vol. XLIX, 1963,
p. 319.

isSRajani Palm Dutt, India Today, (Bombay, 1947), p. 445.

ts®Ziya-ul-Hasan Faruqi, The Deoband School and the Demand for Pakistan, (1963)
p. 54.

Indian Nationalism and Asia 1900-1918

^'^’’Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Mia Wins Freedom (Delhi, 1959) p. 6.

Amrita Bazar Patrika, December 27, 1911.

142/hW., March 5. 1912.

Report of the Twenty Seventh, Mian National Congress, p. 5.

^44 Annie Besant, How Mia Wrought for Freedom (Madras, 1915) p. 554.

^*''The Amrita Bazar Patrika, November 29, 1911.
w«Sisir Gupla, op. cit., p. 122.

^*^Hans Kohn, A History of Nationalism in the East (1929) p. 48.

'48Lakshmi Kant Choudhury, op, cit., p. 98.

*49Minto to Morlcy, May 9, 1906, Minto Papers M. 1005 No. 40.

^•''’S.R. Mehrotra, India and the Connni>ii*ealih, p. 184.

^ Joseph Chailley, Administrative Problems of British India, (1910), p. 76.

^■•^Englishman, (Calcutta) June 26, 1906

1*>9M. Mujeeb, The Indian Muslims, (1967), p. 439.

i^^Government of India, Home Departnnnt, Political, Part A, March, 1913, No. 46.
i^->Government of India, Home Dcpaitme,it. Political, Part A. No. 45 (Government of U.P. to
Government of India. July 16, 1916).

\r,*The Amrita Bazar Patrika, October 9, 1911.

‘•''^Mohammed Noman Muslim India. Rise and Growth of the AU India Muslim League
(Allahabad. 1942), p. 127.

Amrita Bazar Patrika, October 9, I9J1.

'•'^Ibid., Novemb.'r 4, 1911.

^tiHhnernment of India, Home Department, Politcal, Part A, March 1913, No. 47 (Chief
Commissioner of Noith-Wc.st Frontier Province lo Government of India, September 6, 1912).

Amrita Bazar Patrika, October 27, 1911.

^^-Government oj India, Home Depurtmint. Political Part A. March 1913, No. 48 (Government
of Punjab to Government of India, September 17. 1912).
i a-'Ibid.

t®'77je Amrita Bazar Patrika, October 9, 1911.

li-'Govcrnment of India, Home Department, Political Part A, March 1913, No, 52- (Government
of Madras to Government of India, November 1,1912).
iddThe Amrita Bazar Patrika, November 24, 1911.

Government of India, Home Department. Political, Part A, March 1913, No. 50 (Government
of Bombay to Government of India, October 21, 1912).

^t>»Governmeiit of India, Home Department, Political Part A, March 1913, No. 51 (Government
of Bengal to Government of India, October 28-29. 1912).

Amrita Bazar Patrika, Noventber 3, 1911.

170/6/V/., November 27. 1911.

Ibid., December 27, 1911.

'’*Lal Bahadur, The Muslim League ; Its History, Activities and Achievements (Agra, 1954),
pp. 97-100.

iT^Vartan Gregorian, op. cit., p. 213.

^'^^Government of India, Home Department, Political, Part A, Mai ch 1913, No. 48 (Government
of Punjab to Government of India, September 17,1912).

^^^Government of India, Home Department, Political, Part B, October, 1912 Nos. 2-3 (Annual
Report on the native owned papers published in Punjab during 1911)-

^^tiGovernment of India, Home Department, Political, Part B, August 1912, No. 89 (Government
of U.P. to Government of India, August 9, 1912 enclosing an abstract translation of the Pamph¬
lets).

Ml Government of India, Home Department, Political, Part A, March 1913, No. 51 (Government
of Bengal to Government of India, October 28-29, 1912).

M»lbid.

M9Government of Mia, Home Department, Political. Fart B, July 1912, No. 28 (Annual Report
on native owned papers published in Bengal during 1911).

Indian Nationalism and Asia

'^^^Government of India, Home Department, Political, Part B.June 1912, No. 47 (Annual Report
on native owned papers published in Eastern Bengal and Assam during 1911).

Government of India, Home Department, Political, Parts B, October 1912, Nos. 2-3 (Annual
Report on the native owned papers published in Punjab during 1911).

ts-Government of India, Home Department, Political, Part B, July 1912, No. 28, (Annual
Report on native-owned papers published in the Bengal during 1911).

is^Govcrnment of India, Home Department, Political, Part B,June 1912, Nos, 47
^^'Government of India, Home Department, Political, Part B, August 1912, Nos ii-Jd, (Annual
Report on native-owned papers Published in the Bombay Presidency during 1911).

^«®Dwight,E. Lee. “The Origins of Pan-Islamism." The American Historical Review, Vol. XL
VII, J 941-42, pp. 278-87.

Jfi'>ajan. Romein, The Asian Century : A History of Modern Nationalism in Asia (London, 1962),
p. 48.

i*^®2iya-ul-Hasan Faruqi. op. cit., p. 54.

’®^Jan Romein, op. cit., p. 65-

‘‘'^Hardings to Crew, October 30,1912 cited in R.L. Shukla, "Some Aspects of Indian Mus¬
lim Response to the Balkan War”, A paper read at the 34th session of the Indian History Congress
held at Chandigarh in December, 1973.

JWKHardinge to Crew, August 14. \9\3,lhid.

itx'Lord Hardinge to Marquess of Crew, August 8,1912, Ibid.

Mohammad Noman, op. cit., p. 125.

•“-Mohammad Ali, My Life: A Fragment (1942) p. 57.
i»*77/e Indian Review, Vol. XIll, 1912, p. 833-
i»ilbid.

•“■"’Jawahar Lai Nehru, The Discovery of India, p. 10.

iWGovernment of India, Home Deptt. Political, Part A, No. 117, D.O. from H.Le Mesurier to
H, Wheeler, September 27, 1913.

i“^77/e Arnrita Bazar Palrika, December 31, 1912.

•““Lai Bahadur, op. cit., p. 89.

^®*Hans Kohn, op. cit., p. 47.

-""Lai Bahadur, op. cit., p. 89.

-*>^Government of India, Home Deptt. Political, Part A, No, US, (U-P. Government to Govern¬
ment of India, September 17, 1913).

•^»Ubid.

Government of India, Home Deptt. Political, Part A. No. Ill, May 1913, (Bengal Government
to Government of India, April 10,1913).

‘■^'^Ubid.

•i«^Ihid.

^i'^lbid.

^<>'>Ibid.

i^^^Government of India, Home Deptt. Political, Part A, No. 101, October 1913, (D.O. from
A.G. Cardew to H. Wheeler, July 29, 1913).

2''9/Wd., No. 117 (D.O. from B. Robertson to H. Wheeler, September 18, 1913).

2>»//»i</., (D.O. from G A. Barron to H. Wheeler, October 11,1913).

211 /hW., (D.O. from J. Donald to H. Wheeler, October 5,1913).

2i276(rf., (D.O. from C.C. Watson to H. Wheeler, September 24,1913).

'ii^The Arnrita Bazar Patrika, November 8, 1912.

-^"^Ibid., November 11,1912.

2l“J.L. Nehru, The Discovery of India, p. 10.

2>®Michael O’Dwyer, India As A Knew It, 1885-1925 (1925) p. 172.

^i'Government of India, Home Deptt. Political, Part B, No. 149, November 1913,

2i8Mohammed Ali, My Life, A Fragment, pp. 49-50.

‘iiVGovernment of India Home Deptt., Political, Part A. No. 118, U.P. Government to Govern¬
ment of India, September 17,1913)-

Indian Nationalism and Asia 1900-1918

^^^Govemmentof India Home Depth Political, Part A. No. Ill, May 1913, (Government of
Bengal to Government of India, April 10,1913).

^^iHardinge Papers, Vol. 118, Letter No. 60, Hardinge to Crew, December 6, 1912.

^^-Ibid., Vol. 119, Letter Nfo. 20, Hardinge to Crew, April 24, 1913.

^‘^^Ibid., Vol. 119, Letter No. 15, Hardinge to Crew, April 3, 1913.

^Government of India, Home Depth, Political, Part A, No. Ill, May 1913. (Government of
Bengal to Government of India, April 10,1913)-

*i!®Cited A.H. Albiruni, Makers of Pakistan and Modern Maslim India, (1950), p. 136.
^-*Government of India Home Deptt., Ptdniial, Part A, No. Hi, May 1913.

Ibid., Nos, 45-55, March 1913, (D O. from Chief Secretary to the Punjab Government to
H. Wheeler, February 18. 1913).

--^Government of India, Home Deptt. Political, Part D, No. 149, November, 1913.

^^^Gnverment of India, Foreign DeparimenI, No.\. 2H-31, Augint 1913, R\t. 1, B. (Secret).

-^OThe Amrita Bazar Patrika, Novembei 4, 1912,

^^Ubid.

^‘^-Hardinge Papers, Vol. 118, Letter No. 55, Hardinge to Crew, November J3, 1912.

Report of the Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Indian National Congress, 1912. (1912)

p. 5.

'i^^Ibid

'-^^Congress Pre.sidcntiul Addresses: From Silver to the Golden Jubilee 1911,1934 (Second
Series), pp. 65-66-

-'^^Report of the Twenty-Eighth Indian National Congress held at Karachi on Deamber 26, 27
and 28,1913, p. 56.

‘-ii’Quoted in Hans Kohn, op. cit., p. 47.

2S8V.P.S. Raghuvanshi. Indian Notionalist Movement and Thought (1951) p- 140-
-•’®Khaliqu 2 zaman, Pathway to Pakistan, (1961) p, 28.

Mujeeb, op. cit., p 434.

“'**R.C. Majumdar, (ed) The History and Culture of the Indian People : Struggle for Freedom
(1969), p. 220.

^^-A.C- Bose, Indian Revolutioneries Abroad, 1905-1920 in the Background of International
Developments, (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Patna University, 1968) p. 172.

2<3N.M.P. Srivastava ‘‘World War, and Indian Provisional Government in Kabul". Journal of
Historical Research, (Ranchi University), Vol. XVI, August 1973, p. 58.

‘-^*Michael O* Dwyer, op. cit., p. 176.

2«/W</. pp. 176-77.

-‘^^Report of the Sedition Committee 1918, pp, 177-78.

2*’Raja Mahendra Pratap, “Pahali Azad Sena" Panchjanya, April 29, 1%8, p. 72.

S'tsg. Abid Husain, The Destiny of Indian Muslims, p. 76-
2'i»Ziya-ul-Hasan Faruqi, op. cit., p. 60.

25(>Sachindraoath Sanyal, Band/y/wan (Appendix) (1963) p.416.

Abid Husain, op, cit., p. 77.

S'>2R.C. Majumdar (ed). The History and Culture of the Indian People: Struggle for Freedom

p. 223.

2®3Michael O’Dwyer, op. cit., pp. 180-81,

mMetson Collection, Mss, Eur, F13611; pp. 22-24. (Coriespondencc between Abdul Bari and
the Deoband College).

i5&(joyernment of India. Home Deptt., Political, Part B, July 1916, No. 442 (Weekly Report of
the Director, Criminal Intelligence, July 8,1916).

‘i’^Mbid.

^^flbid.

268M.H. Saiyid, Mohammed Ali Jinnah : A Political Study (1945), p. 885.

^^^Govermentof India, Home Deptt., Political, Part B, July 1916, No. 443. (Weekly Report of
the Director, Criminal Intelligence, July 1916).
mibid.

Indian Nationalism and Asia

^®'’Quoted in Yuvraj Deva Prasad, India Muslims and the Arab Rewlt". (a paper presented to
the 34ih Session of the Indian History Congress held at Chandigarh, 1973),

28iC(JVf/'wme«/ of India, Home Deptt., Poltical, Part B, July 1916, No. 442.

^-^Mbid.

►C'Yuvraj Deva Prasad, op. cit.,

CHAPTER /V

FROM DOMINION TO INDEPENDENCE RESOLUTION
AND THE ATTEMPTS—MADE TO PROMOTE ASIAN

SOLIDARITY (1919-29)

The First World War marked the beginning of the end of European coloni¬
alism in Asia and ushered in an era of intense nationalist struggles for independe¬
nce from the Western domination. Though, the Great War of 1914-18 was from
the Asian point of view a civil war within the European Community of nations,^ it
marked the deglorification- of the West in India and also the retreat of Europe in
the Asian Continent.^ From the point of view of Asian nationalism the war proved
to be a blessing in disguise. Not only the educated but the great mass of the people
saw the myth of European superiority destroyed as the Allied Powers sought the
help of the Asiatics in conducting the war. As a matter of fact a new epoch dawn¬
ed in the struggle between the East and the West.^ The Western powers sowed the
seeds of the liquidation of their empires in the East by formulating new ideas in
their war aims. In propaganda compaign against the Germans the Allied Powers
accepted the principle of national self-determination which caught the imagination
of the Asian people. The Great War quickened the national conciousness, not by
prowess of arms but by the political doctrines which it called forth, and especially
by the doctrine of self-determination.® The Asian placed under the umbrella of
Western domination began to ask for the application of the principle of self-deter¬
mination in Asia for which the Asiatics had supported the Allied powers in men
and money and for which, as the Allied powers declared, the war was being fought.

The First World War induced a new psychology in India.® Great Britain and
other Allied Powers had declared that the war was being fought to save democracy
and to guarantee the right of self-determination which kindled a new hope and enthu¬
siasm among the Indian people and a new hope has filled the hearts of the people,
a hope that something is going to happen which will raise the motherland to a hig¬
her status.’ But developments after the war proved that these promises were high
sounding nothings. After the war the British Government took repressive measures
to thwart the nationalist movement in India and there emerged a new class of
nationalists in India. Gandhiji appeared on the firmament of Nationalist India and
dominated the political scene of India for next twenty-five years.

Instead of getting self-rule or other concessions India received the Rowlatt .Acts
which armed the Government with unre.stricted powers to control the press, to try
the political offenders without th? help of juries and to arrest and detain a person

JnMan Nationalism and Asia

suspected of subversive activities for any length of time without holding a trial,
Indians took a serious note of these repressive measures designed to throttle and
suppress even the legitimate rights of the Indians. When the bill was in the Parlia¬
ment Surendranath fianerjee, Srinivas Sastri, Tej Bahadur Sapru and Jinnah had
warned the government that they would have no Indian behind them if they passed
the Bills into Acts/

Inspite of the repeated protests of the Indian leaders the Government of India
passed an Act, known as Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act 1919. This new
Act or the Black Act, as it was dubbed by the nationalists, posed a serious challenge
to the Nationalist India which at the call of Gandhiji observed a nationwide strike on
April 6, 1919 to protest against the repressive measures adopted by the government.
Gandhiji was arrested on April 15, 1919. The Punjab Government imposed martial
law in the province. The arrest of Gandhi and other leaders provoked the people in
many towns of India. The Government perpetrated a reign of terror at Jallianawalla
Bagh, Amritsar, on April 13, 1919. To disperse a meeting of the innocent and
unarmed people at Jallianawalla Bagh the Government indulged in the blood bath
resulting in heavy casualities. The massacre of Jallianawalla Bagh, which was
unparalleled in the history of the world, horrified the nation and the whole country
was excited over it. At a time when the whole country was in a state of excitement
over Jallianawalla Bagh massacre, the Khilafat question added fuel to the fire. Indian
Muslims had supported the British against the Sultan of Turkey on the assurance
that nothing would be done to dismember Turkey but on the termination of the
war, which had resulted in the defeat of Turkey, the Indian Muslims were full of
misgivings about the fate of Turkey and the Caliphate. Gandhiji realised the signi¬
ficance of the moment and spared no pains to forge a united front of the Hindus
and Muslims for the cause of the nation by supporting the Khilafat movement. Both
Hindus and Muslims, the Congress and the Muslim League working under the
spirit of the Lucknow Pact of 1916 joined together and forged a united front to get
the redressal of the two wrongs namely the Khilafat and Punjab atrocities.

It was in this tense atmosphere that the All India Khilafat Conference was held
in November 1919 and was presided over by Gandhi who urged the Hindus to co¬
operate with Muslims on the Khilafat issue.® After the submission of the Hunter
Report in March 1920, Gandhi lost faith in the British Government and under the
leadership of Gandhi the Khilafat Committee adopted a programme of non co¬
operation which was launched on August 1, 1920. The Muslims League was persuad¬
ed to agree to follow Gandhi's lead.’® The special session of the Congress held in
September 1920 at Calcutta adopted Gandhi’s programme of non-co-operation unless
the two wrongs (the Khilafat and Punjab atrocities) were redressed.” The annual
session of the Congress held at Nagpur in December 1920, which looked almost
like a Muslim session,’- ratified the resolution relating to the non-violent non-co-ope¬
ration’® which included surrender of titles and honorary offices and resignation from
nominated seats in the local bodies, boycott of government educational institutions,
law courts and legislatures, boycott of foreign goods, non-payment of taxes and
adoption of Swadeshi.’^ Jinnah opposed Gandhi’s non co-operation programme and
resigned from the Congress’®. However, the movement for Swaraj and non-co-ope¬
ration moved on and the Muslims in large numbers co-operated with the Congress.

From Dominion to Independence Resolution (1919-29)

Throughout 1920 and 1921 the Non-co-operation movement continued with
full vigour. C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru. C. Rajagopalacbari. Rajendra Prasad,
Vallabhbhai Patel and several others left their roaring practices and joined Gandhi
and rallied to the support of the Non-co-operation movement which was in its full
swing. The government resorted to repressive measures and most of the leaders were
placed behind the bars. Politically awakened Indians wanted to move on to the next
stage of the struggle i.e. Civil Disobedience. Gandhi decided to try it first in Bardoli
in Surat district and wrote a letter to the Viceroy on February 1, 1922 demanding
among other things the release of the arrested leaders and threatened the Viceroy
that if these demands would not be conceded he would launch civil disobedience
in Bardoli. On February 6, the Viceroy rejected the demands included in Gandhi’s
ultimatum. In the meantime, an infuriated mob of Chauri Chaura village in
Gorakhpur District, U.P., set fire to a police station and murdered twenty one
policemen. These events shocked Gandhiji, the apostle of non-violence, who sus¬
pended the movement of Civil Disobedience on February 12, 1922. This caused
great indignation among the leaders of the Congress and the devotees and admirers
of Gandhi were the loudest in denouncing his action.^* In (he meantime Gandhi
was arrested on March 13,1922 and in his trial, which began on, March 18, at
Ahmedabad, Gandhiji took full responsibility for the occurences in Madras,
Bombay and Chauri Chaura and added: “I know I was playing with fire. I ran the
risk and if I was set free, I would still do the same”.” When the Congress met at
Gaya in 1922 a rift occured in the Congress. Some Congress leaders including
C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru and Madan Mohan Malaviya, wanted to work out the
reforms of 1919 and favoured Council entry to follow a plan of continuous obstruc¬
tion for mending or ending the new constitution. To the followers of Gandhiji it
was a deviation from the creed of the Congress. Those who stood for Council
entry lost by 1740 to 890 votes ’* Without being discouraged, C.R. Das and Motilal
formed Swaraj Party on January 1, 1923 which aimed at the attainment of Swaraj
but its immediate objective was the speedy attainment of full Dominion Status.”
The party contested the general elections in November 1923 and won 42 out of 101
elective seats in the Central Legislature. The Swarajists with the support of the
Independents led by Jinnah held a meeting at Delhi on February 3, 1924 and
endorsed Jinnah’s resolution asking the Government to take steps immediately for
the establishment of full responsible Government."" But the Swarajists could not be
effective in doing something positive by their entry in the councils and after C.R.
Das’s death the Swaraj party began to lose its popularity. M.R. Jayaka'", N.C.
Kelkar and Moonje left the Swaraj Party and formed the Responsivist Party with
Jayakar as its President. The Responsivists joined hands with the Independents on
April 3, 1926 at Bombay and formed the National Party with the object of pre¬
paring the country for the establishment of Swaraj of the Dominion type.®’ When
such unwarranted developments were taking place in the Congress Camp Gandhi
was released from the jail. Though he was opposed to council entry, he was more
anxious to preserve the unity of the Congress. In order to bring back the Swarajists
to the Congress camp he effected a compromise at the annual session of the
Congress in 1924 where it was agreed that the work in the Central and provincial
legislatures should be carried on by the Swaraj Party on behalf of the Congress and

Indian Nationalism and Asia

as an integral part of the Congress organisation,"^ Gandhiji, in his presidential
address for the Congress in 1924. expressed his opinion against a complete seve¬
rance of the British connection.-® At the Gauhati Congress held in December 1926,
the radicals in the Congress made determined efforts to get the Congress committed
to complete independence and severance of the British connection but it was
Gandhi who foiled their attempts.-’*

The Indian National Movement entered into a critical phase of its progress in
the first few years of the twenties of the present century. If on the one hand, the
solidarity of the Congress was endangered in the wake of the divisions in the
Congress camp, the cordial relation between the Hindus and Muslims fostered by
the Khilafat movement was imperilled by the growing dissensions between the two
communities. The Khilafat movement lost its significance when on March 3, 1924
Mustafii Kcmal Pasha exiled the Khalifa and abolished the Khilafat With the
abolition of Khilafat the great factor which had cemented the Hindu-Muslim unity
also paled into insignificance. In the preceding years of the abolition of the Khilafat
Hindu-Muslim unity was at its height. In 1921, at the time of Bakrid Muslims
voluntarily gave up the sacrifice of cows. Swami Shradhananda, one of the Arya
Samaj leaders, w'as allowed to enter the Jama Masjid of Delhi to deliver an
address.®® But soon this unity came to the rocks and communal clashes in Multan
and Bengal in September, 1922 added to the communal frenzy. The Moplah’s
wanton and unprovoked attack on the Hindu^-^ and the conversion of thousands of
Hindus to Islam created a horror in the Hindus who started the Shuddhi and
Sangathan movement.®’ These Shuddhi and Sangathan movements increased commu¬
nal bitterness and gave birth to the Tabligh and Tanzim movements. Swami
Shradhananda, who had supported the Muslims in the Khilafat movement and
whom the Muslims had permitted to address the Muslims from the pulpit of the
Jama Masjid, was murdered by a Muslim in December 1926. This led to the mutual
distrust, bickering and rivalry between the Hindus and Muslims. The Muslims who
had organised in 1919 to defend Islam against Cross were in 1927 talking of organi¬
sing themselves in defence of Islam against the Hindus.®®

However, the catastrophe of Hindu-Muslim confrontation was averted for the
time being on account of the appointment of the all white Simon Commission on
November 8, 1927, to report on the working of the constitutional reforms in India.
T.ord Birkenhead, the Secretary of Stale for India, provoked the Indian sentiment
by declaring that he could not find suitable Indians to represent India.®” Indians of
all shades of political opinion expressed their indignation at the exclusion of the
Indians from the Commission. A public meeting organised by Tej Bahadur Sapru at
Allahabad on December 11, 1927, regarded the exclusion of Indians a deliberate
insult to the people of India.®® The non-inclusion of Indians on the Commission
aroused universal indignation in India and Jawaharlal Nehru and others gave a
reply to the arropant and insulting challenge by declaring at the Madras Congress
Session in 1927 that the goal of the Indian per pie was to attain complete National
Independence.®^

Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who had resigned from the Congress in 1920, had not
ceased to be a nationalist. In November 1927 the League and the Congress, owing
to the efforts of .Tinnah. started drawing closer to each other and the constitution

From Dominion to Independence Resolution {1919-29)

of the all white Simon Commission gave encouragement to these moves for Hindu-
Muslim solidarity, Indians of all shades of political opinion boycotted the Simon
Commission. Everywhere it was greeted with the slogan of *'Simon go back'\ Lala
Lajpat Rai, Jawaharlal Nehru and other Indian leaders had to face the lathi-charge
but the boycott was complete. The Muslim League was divided over the issue of
boycott of Simon Commission. A section of the Muslim League headed by Sir
Muhammad Shaft stood for co-operating with the Commission. The other section
under the leadership of Jinnah held a meeting at Calcutta on December 30, 1927
and called upon the Muslims to “have nothing to do with the Commission at any
stage or in any form”.*"

The Congress convened an All Parlies Conference in Delhi towards the end of
February, 19*8 in which twenty-nine parties participated. The All Parties Confe¬
rence was also held in Bombay on May 19, 1928. The Conference appointed a sub¬
committee under the presidentship of Motilal Nehru to draft a constitution. The
Nehru Report was published on Augu.st 14, 1928. The report of the Nehru Com¬
mittee which included members representing the Liberals, Hindu Mahasabhite,
Muslims, non-Brahmins, the Sikh League and Labour,'** recommended Dominion
Status as the basis of the Indian Constitution and was not in favour of separate
electorates. It recommended joint electorates with one communal safeguard which
was reservation of seals only for the Muslims where they were in a minority. The
Nehru Report was considered by the All Parties Conference held in Lucknow in
August, 1928 and was unanimously accepted but the Conference enlarged the Nehru
Committee for studying certain problems that had cropped up since the publication
of the Report.'** The Nehru Report produced mixed reaction among the Indians.
The Report was denounced by Sbaukat Ali who observed : “As a Young man, he
had been a k6en owner of greyhounds, but he had never seen greyhounds deal with
a hare as the Hindus proposed to deal with the Muslims”.** In December 1928,
leaders of all parties met in an All-India Convention at Calcutta to consider the
Nehru Report. The Report was supported by Maulana Azad, Sir Ali Imam and Dr.
Ansari. The Khilafat leaders and the Muslim League handed by Shaft condemned
the report and they w'anted separate electorates and federal constitution with the
weak centre for India.

Furthermore, the Khilafat leaders criticised the Nehiu Report for its acceptance
of Dominion Status for India.*** Jinnah demanded that the Muslims should have
one third of the seats in the future Parliament of India. He declared that if the
Muslims demands would be conceded they would be reconciled to the Hindus and
both the Hindus and Muslims would march hand in hand in future *' But Jinnah's
demands were rejected. M R. Jayakar, who represented the Hindu Mahasabha’s
point of view, stressed that Jinnah represented only a small minority of Muslims
and therefore there was no guarantee that if the demands of Jinnah were accepted,
the rest of the Muslims would abide by such an agreement. .layakar also warned the
convention not to give more concessions to Muslims because it would alienate the
support of the Hindus.®** Muhammad Azizul Haque, one of the Muslim League
delegates to the All Parties Convention, pointed out that the only reason why the
Congress and Muslim League leaders could not reach a settlement was because of
the unwillingness of the Hindu leaders to concede thirty three percent seats to the

Indian Nationalism and Asia

Muslim League in the Central Legislature.^* Disappointed at the deliberations of
the Convention Jinnah with tears in his eyes told a friend, “This is the parting of
the ways”.^®

The All Parties Convention did not bring any tangible result. Different factions
of the Muslims joined together and the All-India Muslim Conference was held in
Delhi on January 1, 1929 under the presidentship of the Aga Khan. The All-India
Muslim Conference demanded a federal system of government for India, with
complete autonomy and residuary powers vested in the Constituent States, separate
electorates for the Muslims; weightage for the Muslims in the Hindu majority
provinces, due Muslim share in the cabinets and the services, the adequate safe¬
guards for Muslim religion and language and non-interference with the Muslims in
Bengal and Punjab where the Muslims formed the majority. The Conference empha¬
tically declared that no constitution would be acceptable to the Indian Muslims
unless it conformed with the principles embodied in this resolution.^' Jinnah also
changed his grounds and in a special meeting of the Muslim League held on March
28, 1929 he formulated his Fourteen Points. Jinnah proposed to join the Hindus in
the struggle for freedom if the Muslims were conceded one third representation in
the Central Legislature. He envisaged a federation of Hindu and Muslim majority
provinces and effective representation of the Muslims, separate electorates; ade¬
quate share to the Muslims in all Cabinetes, services; unalterability of the consti¬
tution unless every state agreed; the right of a community to veto a resolution in
the legislature if three fourth of the members of that community in the legislatures
exercised it.*- Thus, both the Congress and the Muslim League held divergent
opinions and the two organisations began to move into two different directions.
The Moderate leaders in Muslim Community viewed with concern the growth of
the idea of complete independence in India. Jinnah in his letter to Ramsay Mac
Donald pointed out that India has lost her faith in Great Britain and informed the
Prime Minister that it was very difficult to persuade the Indians to co-operate in the
future stages of constitution making unless the British Government made a wholly
fresh move and granted full responsible Government with Dominion Status.*^

At a time when the Muslim League had parted with the Congress in the All
Parties Convention in December 1928 and was demanding Dominion Status for
India, the Indian National Congress, under the leadership of Jawahar Lai Nehru,
Subhas Chandra Bose, S. Srinivas Iyengar, stood for complete independence. But
the Congress could not accept it as a national creed at the Calcutta session of
1928, where Jawahar Lai asked the moderate Congress leaders that if they were
prepared to pull down the flag of independence they must give him and his asso¬
ciates the freedom to hold on to that flag.** He further declared : “Before a new
bridge is built on the basis of friendship and co-operation, the present chains which
tie us to England must be severed only then can real co-operation take place”.*^
Gandhiji disapproved of the view point of these radicals and urged the impatient
Youth of the country to wait a while.** Gandhiji put forward a compromise solution
at the Calcutta session and suggested that the Dominion Status should be accepted,
provided the British Parliament accepted the Nehru Constitution in its entirety
within a year. It was also decided that if the Government did not accept the Nehru
Report by December 1929 the Congress would stand for complete independence

From DonUnion to Independence Resolution (1919-29)

and start Satyagrah to achieve it/^

The revolutionary activities ofBhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt and their
bomb throwing in the Assembly on April 8, 1929, the Satyagrah movement and
no rent compaign of the peasants of Bardoli in Surat convinced Lord Irwin, the
Viceroy, that India was passing through "critical days”*^ Lord Irwin took the
initiative and visited London for consultations with the Labour Ministers who came
to power in June, 1929 and impressed upon them the necessity for a fresh move for
constitution making in India. On October 31, 1929 Lord Irwin announced that the
natural issue of India’s constitutional progress, as contemplated in the Government
of India Act, 1919, was Dominion Status. Lord Irwin stated that with a view to
discussing the next constitutional advancementdhere would be held a Round Table
Conference of the representatives of British India and the Indian States with the
British Government.'*” But the adverse criticism of Irwin’s declaration in Britain by
both Liberals and Conservatives compelled the Congress to believe that the British
Government did not mean business.®" Thereupon, the Lahore Congress in December,
1929 under the presidentship of Jawahar Lai Nehru declared its goal to be the
achievement of complete independence for India. It was resolved that the proposed
Round Table Conference should be boycotted, that Congressmen should walk out
of the Central and provincial legislatures and a civil disobedience movement be
launched at a proper time in the near future.®* The Congress declaration for com¬
plete independence marked a new turn in the history of Indian National Movement.

During this period of intense nationalism (1918-29) the Indian National Move¬
ment shifted from the demand for Dominion Status to complete independence.
While Indian National Movement passed through so many trials and the Indian
leaders were awefully busy in defining its objectives and in forging a united front to
deal with the British, they did not remain aloof from the neighbours in Asia and
spared time to look to them and their problems.

Turkey was the first Asian country which received the attention of the Indian
leaders. Indian Muslims had supported the British Government in conducting the
war against the Central European powers and Turkey on the assurance that noth¬
ing would be done to jeopardise the interests of Turkey Lloyd George, the British
Prime Minister, announced on January 5, 1918 that the Allies were not fighting to
deprive Turkey of its capital, or of the rich and renowned lands of Asia Minor and
Thrace, which are predominantly Turkish in race.®“ After the war the Muslims of
India were disappointed by the Machiavellian policy of the British Government.
Indian Muslims became perturbed at the reported news of the harsh terms of the
treaty made with Turkey after the war. They became ashamed of their own guilt in
bringing the downfall of the Khilafat as they had served the British army, fought
against their own brethren of Turkey in several battles. To express sympathy with
Turkey and Caliph the Khilafat movement sprang up and the Muslims mobilised
all their resources for exerting their influence on the British Government to do
justice with Turkey and to prevent the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire.

Though the movement was at first animated by a spirit of Pan-Islamism, it was
also the first opportunity to demonstrate India’s solidarity with a fellow Asian
Country. To show oneness with Turkey the All India Muslim League in its meeting
in December 1918 urged upon the British Government to pay regard to the prevail-

Indian Nationalism and Asia

ing attitude of the Indian Muslims regarding the fate of Turkey and the sacred places
of Islam. Reminding the British Government that the collapse of Turkey would
have for reaching effects on the minds of even the loyal Mussalmans of India the
All India Muslim League requested the British Oovernttient and her representatives
at the Paris Peace Conference to use their influence and to see that in the territorial
and political redistribution to be made the fullest consideration should be paid to
the requirements of the Islamic law with regard to the full and independent control
by the Sultan of Turkey over the Holy Places and over the Jazirat-ul>Arab as
delineated in the Muslim books. The League further expressed the hope that in
determining the political relations of the Empire in future the British Government
would pay heed to the sentiments of the Indian Muslims and would try to effect a
complete reconciliation between the Empire and the Muslim States on terms of equity
and justice in the interests of both the British Empire and the Muslim world.^®

A mass meeting of the Muslims of Madras was held on January 17, 1919 to
discuss the situation in Turkey. Yakub Hassan, in his presidential speech for the
meeting, held the British responsible for bringing war into Asia and appealed to
the British Government not to dismember Turkey.®* The Bengal Presidency Muslim
League at its meeting held at Mymensingh on April 22, 1919 passed a resolution
demanding the continuance of the sovereignty of the Sultan of Turkey over the
Jazirat-ul-Arab. It emphatically protested against any attempt to weaken the autho¬
rity of the Sultan over the said territories inasmuch as any such attempt would
affect the religious beliefs of the Mussalmans in India.®® An emergent meeting of
the Madras Liberal League held on September 2, 1919 appealed to the British
Government to use all its influence to prevent the dismemberment of the Turkish
Empire and the transfer of the homelands of the Turkish nation to other nationali¬
ties.®* In a largely attended meeting of the Mohammedans held at Bombay on
September 18, 1919 the questions of Khilafat and the preservation of the holy
places of Islam were discussed. The special feature of the meeting was the presence
of Gandhi who addressed the meeting and shared the sentiments expressed. In his
presideniial speech Mohammed Chotani appealed to the Paris Peace Conference
not to commit any such blunder in the settlement regarding the Turkish Empire as
might lead to wounding the religious susceptibilities of the Indian Muslims. This
public meeting expressed its indignation at the contemplated move to dismember
the Turkish Empire by internationalising Constantinople and Cessation of Thrace
to Greece and the giving of Mandates of Hejaz, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia to
different European powers and emphatically protested against this intended act of
spoliation.®' On September 22, 1919 about five thousand Muslims from all parts of
India attended the All India Muslim Conference held at Lucknow under the
Chairmanship of Abdul Bari of Firangi Mahal. The Conference passed eight resolu¬
tions sympathi.sing with Turkey and expressing India’s solidarity with the Sultan.
The Conference asked for the freedom of the holy places from all non-Muslim
influence; demanded evacuation of Smyrna and of Hinterland by Greece, and the
Turkish Sovereignty over Thrace, Asia Minor and Constantinople. The Conference
fixed October 17, 1919 as an universal day of prayer in Islamic India for the pre¬
servation of the Khalifa’s full dignity and for holding meetings of protest. Muslim
members of the Viceroy's Council expressed full sympathy with th? objects of the

From Dominion Independence Resolution {1919-29) 77

Conference.®® To express solidarity with Turkey and the Caliph October 17, 1919
was observed as Khilafat Day —day of fasting and prayer in India. Meetings in
support of Turkey were organised.®”

Gandhiji was anxious to present a United Front of Hindus and Muslims
against the British. He seized the opportunity when the Muslims were agitated over
the Khilafat issue. He set out on an ambitious plan of forging Hindu-Muslim unity
by supporting wholeheartedly the Khilafat movement of the Indian Muslims. He
issued a message on November 1, 1919 declaring that Indians would not partici¬
pate in Peace Celebration so long as the Khilafat wrong remained unredressed.””
On November 3, 1919 the All India Muslim League sent a cable to the British
Prime Minister, Secretary of State for India and the Islamic Bureau, London,
expressing alarm and indignation at the attitude of the British Prime Minister
towards the Turkish question as disclosed by Sheffield Speech which foreshadowed
anti-Turkish and anti-Muslim nature of the settlement. The Council of the League
warned the British that such an attitude would drive the Indian Muslims to a resolve
to abstain from participating in the Peace Celebration of the Empire.®^

Indian Muslims organised the Khilafat Movement to protest against the dis¬
memberment of Turkey. They were supported by the Hindus and other non Muslim
communities in India. Mahatma Gandhi gave his wholehearted support to the
movement as a result of which the movement became widespread and the Khilafit
issue a national issue. The first Khilafat conference was held in Delhi on November
23, 1919. Hindus were invited by the Muslims to attend the Delhi Khilafat Con¬
ference.®- Gandhi, who was present in the meeting, urged the Muslims to remain
non-violent, but cease to co-operate with the Government in case the British
Government did not abandon tbeir anti-Turkish policy The Conference urged the
Indian Muslims to refrain from participating in the forth-coming victory celebra¬
tions and requested all the Khilafat committees and Indian Muslims to render all
possible help to all India anti-Peace Celebration Committee of Delhi with Dr M.A.
Ansari as its president whose aims were to widely disseminate the reasons for abs¬
tention from the victory carnival. The Conference resolved that in the event of a
satisfactory settlement of the Turkish question not taking place, the Mussalmans of
India would progressively withhold all co-operation from the British Government
and would boycott all British goods. It further resolved to send a deputation on
behalf of the Mussalmans of India to England for acquainting the British Govern¬
ment and other publicmen the true sentiments of the Indian Muslims with regard to
Turkish and Khilafat questions. It was also decided that a deputation should go to
the United States for the same purpose.®^

The Indian National Congress at its Amritsar session in December, 1919
discussed the Turkish problem. Referring to the Khilafat issue, Motilal Nehru, the
president of the session, declared that it was impossible for one part of the nation
to stand aloof while the other part was suffering from a serious grievance and
assured the Muslims of the sympathy of the Hindus in the distress of the former
over the fate of the Caliphate. Reminding the British Government of the assurances
given by Lloyd George the Congress President emphatically declared : “Muslim
India, nay United India, demands that full effect be given to those assurences”.®®
The Congress President asked the British Government to apply the principle of self-

Indian Nationalism and Asia

determination to the component parts of the Turkish Empire as it had been applied
to in cases of Poland and Yugoslavia and further asked the Government the reason
behind the different treatment being given to Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine.
The position of Khilafat-ul-IsIam, the Congress President agreed, was a subject
matter to be decided by the Muslims and the British Government should pay regard
to it.*® The Amritsar session of the Congress appealed to the British Government to
settle the Turkish question in accordance with the just and legitimate sentiments of
Indian Mussalraans without which, the Congress warned, there would be no real
contentment among the people of India.”

The All India Muslim League at its meeting at Amritsar on December 29, 1919
discussed the Turkish problem. Prominent Congress leaders like Gandhi, Pandit
Malviya, B.N. Sharma, Ramaswami iyer attended the meeting. The League reitera¬
ted its devotion to the sacred person of the Sultan who was the successor of the
Prophet and the head of Islam, and warned the British Government that no settle¬
ment contemplating the dismemberment of Turkey would ever satisfy the Indian
Mussalmans and they would be fully justified to carry on all possible methods of
constitutional agitation open to them including a boycott of the British army to be
used outside India for imperial or anti-Islamic purposes.®^

Sympathy for Turkey was so universal in India that even the moderate leaders
became critical of British policy in regard to Turkey. The Moderate Conference
held at Calcutta on December .30, 1919 deeply regretted the long delay in the settle¬
ment of satisfactory peace terms with Turkey and viewed with grave concern every
political action which might tend to affect the position or dignity of the Sultan of
Turkey as the Khalifa or the guardian of the holy places of Islam. The Conference
emphatically stated that any settlement which disregarded the sentiments of the
Muslim world would create widespread discontent.®* The All India Khilafat Con¬
ference held on December 31, 1919 at Amritsar, which was attended by Mahatma
Gandhi, Swami Shradhananda, Mohmed Ali, Dr. Ansari, Hakim Ajmal Khan,
Pandit Malviya, Jinnah and Pandit Rambhuj Dutt Choudhry, reiterated its deci¬
sion to send two deputations of the Muslims to England and America and to send a
representative Muslim deputation to Constantinople to express sentiments of Islamic
brotherhood before the Sultan of Turkey. The Conference regretted that the
demands of the Indian Muslims regarding the Khilafat, holy places, and the pre¬
servation of the pre-war status of the Ottoman Empire had not yet been aaepted
and declared that the Indian Muslims still stood firmly by those demands. The
Conference further resolved to open a Khilafat fund and to instruct the Central
Khilafat Committee of India, Bombay, to make the necessary arrangements for the
collection of ten lakh rupees. It requested the Indian Muslims to render every possi¬
ble assistance to the Central Khilafat Committee in carrying out sympathetic and
assistance works in Turkey.’® Many Hindu leaders supported the resolutions
adopted by this Khilafat Conference and even Swami Shradhananda, the veteran
Arya Samajist, extended his hearty support to the proceedings of the Conference.’^

A deputation under the leadership of Dr. Ansari met the Viceroy on January
19, 1920 and impressed upon him the necessity for the preservation of the Turkish
Empire and of the sovereignty of the Sultan as Khalifa. The address which the
deputation presented to the Viceroy was signed by prominent Hindu political

From Dommion Independence Resolution (1919-29)

leaders including G’andhiji, Swami Shradhananda, Motilal Nehru and Madan
Mohan Malviya.’^ The Viceroy’s reply to the deputation was disappointing. Conse¬
quently, the Muslim* leaders issued a statement that if the peace terms would result
in disfavour to Muslim religion and sentiments, they would place an undue strain
upon Muslim loyalty and the statement further demanded that Arabia and the holy
places of Islam should be under the control of the Khalifa and the pledges made by
Lloyd George during war time should be fulfilled.’* The second Sindh Khilafat
Conference held on February 14,11920 with some 15,000 representatives of Hindus
and Muslims present in the meetings, declared allegiance to the Caliph and expressed
utmost concern for the holy places.’^ The^ Third Khilafat Conference held at
Bombay on February 15, 1920 issued a manifesto declaring that any reduction of
claim would not only be a violation of the deepest religious feelings of the Muslims,
but also a flagrant violation of the solemn pledges made by the British Statesmen
during the war and warned the British Government against the consequence of the
wrong decision particularly when not only the Muslim but also the entire Hindu
population demanded the just treatment of the Khilafat.’® On February 28, 1920
the Bengal Provincial Khilafat Conference emphatically declared that if the Khilafat
demands were not complied with Muslims would find it difficult to keep their
loyalty to the British Government intact. The Conference proposed 19th March to
be observed as Khilafat Day—a day of hartal.’® The Khilafat Committee, which
was formed at Patna on March 7, 1920 under the leadership of Hassan Imam, also
decided to observe 19th March as a Khilafat Day.” Gandhi held out threatening
langxiage towards England in a Manifesto, dated March 10, 1910 which stated that
if the Muslim demands on the Khilafat wrongs were not satisfied Gandhi would
lead a non-co-operation movement Gandhi also warned the British : ‘‘England can
not expect a meek submission by us to an unjust usurpation of rights which to
Moslems mean a matter of life and death”.’" Mass meetings in support of Khilafat
were held at Aligarh, Amritsar and Nagpur on March 12, 1920. The Punjab Mus¬
lims presented an address to Lieutenant-Governor on Khilafat wrong and on March
15, 1920 a Khilafat meeting was held at Delhi to protest against the anti-Turk
policy of the Christian powers.’"

The Khilafat Delegation headed by Mohammed Ali met Lloyd George on
March 17, 1920 and intimated him that for Muslims to accept mandates over Iraq,
Syria and Palestine would amount to a total disregard of the wishes of the Prophet.
The results of the meeting did not satisfy the Muslims and Mohammed Ali return¬
ed empty-handed to India in October 1920."“ To protest against the attitude of the
British Premier and to express solidarity with Turkey, Khilafat Day followed by all
India Hartal was observed on March 19, 1920. Prayers, fastings and meetings were
observed throughout India The Hindus also took part in the processions and proceed¬
ings of the Khilafat Day."^ Shaukat Ali emphatically stated that if the terms of the
peace treaty were not satisfactory, Muslims of India would be forced to sever their
loyal connection with the British throne. Gandhiji also reiterated that in case of peace
terms not acceptable to the Muslims he would launch non-co-operation movement.®*

The terms of the Treaty of Severes dismembering Turkey were announced on
May 14, 1920. Although Turkey retained Constantinople, the rest of Thrace was
given to Greece along with Smyrna, Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia were deta-

Indian Nationalism and Asia

ched from Turkish Empire and were placed under Mandate of France and England.
Hedjaz became a free and independent State, free and easy access to Mecca and
Medina to Muslim pilgrims of all countries was guaranteed.'^’^ These peace terms
caused the greatest indignation among the Indian Muslims and synchronising as it
did with the publication of the Hunter Committee’s Report, the whole country was
ablaze,®* The Central Khilafat Committee at a meeting at Bombay on May 20,1920
adopted non-co-operation as the only means left to Muslims.®® The All India
Congress Committee in May, 1920 raised voices of complaint against the peace
terms imposed on Turkey.®® A mass meeting of Hindus and Muslims was held at
Allahabad under the auspices of the Central Khilafat Committee on June 1, and 2,
1920 to oppose the peace terms and to consider the Khilafat and non-co-operation
movement. Eminent among the Hindu leaders present in the meeting were Gandhi,
Motilal Nehru, Lajpat Rai, Tej Bahadur Sapru, B.C. Pal. Madan Mohan Malviya,
Satyarauiti, Rajagopalachari, Jawaharlal Nehru and Chintamani. The Khilafat
Committee decided non-co-operation as the only suitable means to protest against
harsh terms of the treaty and a committee was appointed to chalk out the future
programme. Gandhiji was the only Hindu leader who was included in the Executive
Committee formed to formulate detailed programme of non-co-operation.®’

Ninety prominent Muslim leaders of India sent a letter to the Viceroy on June
22, 1920, condemning the peace terms as a betrayal to the Muslims and requesting
the Viceroy to exercise his influence for the revision of the peace terms. The letter
warned the Government that if it failed to do the needful by August 1, 1920, the
Muslims would resort to non-violent non-co-operation. “We claim”, the signatories
to the letter declared, “to be as loyal subjects of the Crown as any in India. But we
consider our loyalty to an earthly sovereign to be subservient to our loyalty to
Islam”.®® Gandhi gave a notice to the Viceroy on July 1, 1920 that non-co-operation
would start in August 1920. After this Gandhi took upon himself the task of per¬
suading the Congress to launch a non-co-operation movement in concert with the
Khilafat Committee. To rally the people behind the Khilafat cause Gandhi went on
an extensive tour of the country between August 1, and September 1, 1920.®'-'

Muslim opinion became so much excited in India on account of the harsh terms
of the treaty imposed upon Turkey that the Ulemas declared it to be derogatory for
the Muslims to remain, in India, a land of the enemy of Islam. Consequently a plan
was embarked upon for hijrat to Islamic countries. About 18,000 people left India
in the month of August, 1920 alone and went to Afghanistan,®® where they were
welcomed by Amanullah But the Afghans were soon alarmed at the heavy influx
of Indian Muslims in Afghanistan because majority of them expected not only hospi¬
tality but land as well.®-^ The Kabul Government began to dislike this influx of Indian
Muslims in Afghanistan. Dismayed by their experiences in Afghanistan most of the
migrants wandered back to Punjab and most of them suffered indescribable miseries
and perished on the way.®® This was a rude shock to the votaries of Pan-Islam
amongst the Indian Muslims®* and this affair hurt Amanullah’s prestige in India.®®
Nevertheless, the Muslims could not be disheartened in their zeal for Turkey.
The Khilafat movement assumed a new dimension on August 1, 1920. The day was
observed as Khilafat Day all over India.®® It was on this day that Mahatma Gandhi
formally inaugurated his non-co-operation movement to protest against the Khilafat

Indian Nationalism and Asia 1900-1918

1913 the Congress expressed its grief over the subversion of the Ottoman power in
Europe and the strangling of Persia.^^'* The Amrita Bazar Patrika in its editorial
expressed sympathy with Persia.^*®

By and large, Indian Muslims did not have an organised, well-planned and
well-thought outlook on international problems in the first few years of the 20th
century. There was an apparent absence of foreign orientation in the Muslims of
India. But against this general lack of a foreign affairs orientation, however, must
be noted the fact of the historical sympathy and interest of the Muslims of India
for other Muslim countries of West Asia and North Africa.’*® Indian Muslims
opened their lips whenever they saw that their co-religionists in the countries of West
Asia were under troubles because they had sentimental and cultural affinity with the
Muslims of these countries. Indian Muslims were loyal to the Sultan of Turkey who
was the religious and spiritual head of the Muslims of the world.

Indian Muslims also came under the influence of the Pan-Islamic movement.
When Abdul Harr d II started the construction of the Hedjaz Railway all the
Muslim nations contributed towards the railway construction fund. Huns Kohn
wrote: “Events in one part of the Mohammedan world found an echo in far distant
parts. Mohammedans of all lands, especially India, contributed to the building of
the Hedjaz Railway”.’*’

Pan-Islamic feelings deepened in India in the first quarter of the 20ih century
so much so that two Muslim gentlemen, namely ^haikh_jAbdurjQadir of Lahore and
Sheikh h^ushir Husai n Kidwai of Gad ia, visited "Constantinople in 1906 and received
special recognitTou and decoration from the Sultan of Turkey. After their return to
India they spared no labour to promote Pan-lslaraic activities.”® Indian Muslims
came under the spell of Pan-Islamic movement to such an extent that in. May, 1906
Minto wrote to Morley, “There is, as you no, doubt know, a Pan-Islamic movement
working in India in no friendly sense towards our rule, and even in present circums¬
tance it will probably make itself felt”.”®

One of the important factors which had made the Indian Muslims loyal to the
British Rule was that the latter was at friendly terms with Muslim states, especially
Turkey. The deterioration in the relations between England and Turkey in the
beginning of the 20th century was anxiously watched by the Indian Muslims.
Indian Muslims, who had always felt alarmed at the anti-Turkish policy of the
Liberal Party of England, became sore over the return of the Liberal Party in
power in 1905.’®® Muslims in India began to review and reconsider their duty in
case Great Britain and Turkey were interlocked in a war. Mian Fazl-i-Husain, who
was a barrister of the Lahore High Court and a member of Viceroy's Council from
1930-35, representing the opinion of the dominant section of the Muslims in India,
emphatically stated that in case of a war between England and Turkey, 95 per cent
of the followers of Islam in India would repudiate their allegiance to the British
Crown.’®’ There was, however, another section of Muslims in India which refuted
the claim of Fazl-i-Husain. Nawab Mohsin-ul~Mulk, who aimed at creating an
Anglo-Muslim entente, declared that the Khalifa was in no way the ruler of the
Muslims. Beyond doubt, the Indian Muslims were full of sympathy and reverence
for the Sultan of Turkey and wished for the longevity of the Turkish Empire, but
being the subjects of the King-Emperor, the Muslims of India, Mohsin-ul-Mulk

tridian Nationalism and Asia

The year 1911 marked a turning point in the Pan-Islamic movement in India
and gave a new orientation to the Indian attempts for Asian Solidarity. Frustrated
and annoyed at the revocation of the partition of Bengal in 1911, the Indian Muslim
were doubly shocked to hear the news of Italo-Turkish War. In 1911 Italy seized
Tripolitana, then part of the Turkish Empire. Great Britain remained neutral in this
war. The news that a Christian power was at war with the Caliphate aroused hist
among the middle-class Indian Muslims sympathy and concern for the safety of
Turkey. The war produced a good deal of agitation among the Muslims in India who
desired that Great Britain, which contained millions of Muslims as its subjects,
should support Turkey against Italy. Hence, the British policy to remain neutral
during the war caused a stir among the Indian Muslims who became anti-British in
their outlook. To show their resentment over the British attitude towards the Italo-
Turkish war and to express their sympathy with the Turkish people. Muslims in
India held meetings, passed resolutions and prayed to God. The resentment against
the unprovoked Italian invasion of Tripoli was universal and brought forth a consi¬
derable amount of explosive literature and created an awareness of the international
situation among Muslims in India.^®* It was the U.P. Government which first of all
brought to the notice of the Government of India the effects of the Italo-Turkish
war on the Indian Muslims. On getting information from the U.P. Government, the
Government of India directed the local governments of Madras, Bombay, Bengal,
Bihar and Orissa, Punjab, Central Provinces and North West Frontier Province to
assess the depth of anti-British sentiments caused among the Muslims by the Italo-
Turkish War.^®^ Various Muslim Organisations appealed to the Government of
India to intervene in the War but the British Government declared to remain
neutral. Thereupon, anti-British wave swept away the Muslims who began to think
that there existed a secret Christian coalition, with which Britain was also associated,
to overthrow Muslim powers all over the world.An emergent meeting of the
Council of the All India Muslim League held at Lucknow on October 7, 1911,
passed resolutions sympathising with the Turkish people. The Council of the League
placed on record its deep abhorrence of Italy’s unjustifiable and high-handed action
in Tripoli and sympathised with Turkey in her undeserved troubles and admired her
magnamity and dignified attitude throughout the crisis and appealed to the British
Government to exercise its great influence as the greatest Muslim power and tradi¬
tional ally of Turkey in the cause of peace to put an end to an unjust war. The
Council of the League further advised the Mussulmans in India to keep a dignified
attitude and place implicit confidence in the benevolence and good intentions of the
British Government. The Council appealed to the Muslims to raise subscriptions
for the relief of the sufferers in the war and urged the Muslims throughout the
country to boycott Italian goods'^^ of which a list was published as ''means of
retaliation'*.^^’’

Numerous meetings were held all over India to express sympathy with Turkey.

Indian Nationalism and Asia 1900-1918

OnOctober 7, 1911 the Muslims of Detadi, district Aligarh, prayed to God for
Turk’s victory over Italy and expressed their sincere feelings against the unjust and
hateful aggression of Italy and hoped that the British Government would prevent
the progress of the conflict in the interest of Islam and the Muslim Community.”®
A mass meeting was held at Kanpur on November 3, 1911, to protest against Italy’s
actions in Tripoli and to ask the British Government to interfere and save the
Turks from injury.^®*

Muslims of Bihar held several meetings to collect money for the Red Crescent
Society but they could not collect large amount. However, they all felt that more
active measures should have been made to save Turkey.”® At a meeting held in
Bihar the Italian invasion of Tripoli was strongly condemned and the Muslims pre¬
sent in the meeting took a vow to boycott Italian goods, to raise subscriptions for
the Turkish sufferers and to co-operate with the Red Crescent Society to do relief
work in Turkey

In Punjab the Muslims were very anxious about the fate of Turkey. The Punjab
Muslims believed \ hat England was in league with other European powers in destroy¬
ing Turkey.”- The Muslim feeling ran so high in Punjab that widespread resent¬
ment against the Government was apprehended and it was therefore that the Punjab
Government wanted an early termination of the war without causing much
humiliation to Turkey.”® Meetings were organised in the province to express sym¬
pathy with Turkey. A mass meeting of the Mohammedans held at Lahore expressed
its indignation at Italy’s high-handed action in Tripoli and promised its solidarity
with Turkey. The meeting also urged upon the Muslims of India to boycott Italian
goods.”’*

The Muslims in Madras also expressed their sympathy with the Turks.^*” In
this province some Muslims were moved so much by the tragic tale of Tripoli that
they adopted retaliatory methods and indulged in physical assaults of the Chris¬
tians. A disturbance took place in Changnachery in Travencore State when some
Muslims apparently got out of hand after reading about the Italo-Turkish War in a
local vernacular newspaper and assaulted a number of Christians.”'®

There was a widespread pro-Turkish feeling in the Muslim Community of
Bombay. The Muslims in Bombay Presidency held several meetings to collect fund
for the Red Crescent Society and made several representations to the Government
against Italian atrocities in Tripoli. The province was visited by the emissaries from
Turkey, Egypt and Persia who urged the Muslims to support Turkey and convinced
the Bombay Muslims of British connivance with Italian atrocities in Tripoli. The
papers like Al-Hiial, Zamindar, Watan, Paisa Akhbar, Vakil did a lot to arouse
Muslim feeling in Bombay.”’’

In Bengal, the Muslims felt alarmed at the Italian activities in Tripoli and
expressed iheir sympathy with Turkey and criticised British Government for her
neutrality in the War. Numerous meetings were held all over Bengal to sympathise
with the Turks. A branch of the Red Crescent Society was established and large
amount of subscriptions was raised to help the Turks in their hours of trouble.*®®
A largely attended mass meeting of the Mohammedans of Basirhat sub-division
in Bengal expressed sympathy with the Turks engaged in war with Italy and urged
upon the Muslims to boycott Italian goods and expressed sympathy for the woun-

Indian Nationalism and Asia

ded and killed on the side of Turkey. About sixty rupees were collected on the spot
for the relief work in Turkey. The Mussalmans of Mymensingh also expressed their
hcaril'elt sympathy with the Turkish people.^'*® Nearly three thousand Muslims,
including leaders like Dr. Suhrawardy, Cossim Ariff and Haji Ahmad, attended a
meeting at Calcutta to express sympathy with Turkey and to condemn Italian action
in Tripoli."''* On December 23, 1911, a mass meeting of the Muslims was held at
Nehalpur, a village in the sub-division of Basirhat, district 24 Paraganas, and
resolutions protesting against Italian atrocities in Tripoli and expressing sympathy
with the Sultan on account of the unjust attack of Italy on Tripoli were adopted.
The sympathy for the Turkish dead and wounded had become so deep that sponta¬
neous contributions to the relief fund came forth from ail sides when the meeting
dispersed. Foriycighl rupees were contributed by the poor Muslims for the relief
fund.’’‘

The Muslim newspapers and pamphlets raised hue and cry over Italian invasion
of Tripoli and aroused the sentiments of the Indian Muslims in favour of the
Turkish people and Sultan. Important Muslim periodicals in India, notably Al-Hilal
Comrade, Zamindar, Hamdard, and the Aligarh Institute Gazette, supported the
Turkish cause and argued for Muslim unity and solidarity.’^- Muhammad Iqbal,
the great Muslim Poet-Philosopher of India, alao lent his voice to the protest,
reading a poem dedicated to the Turkish struggle in Tripoli in the mosques of
India,’*** The Punjab Government held the Zamindar, Vakil and Al-Muio responsible
for propagating Pan-Islamic sentiments in Punjab.^"’ The Zamindar became so
much popular with the Muslims that it was converted from a weekly into a daily,
and its circulation went up in a large number. For its bitter attacks on Christian
nations the Government considered the “Zamindar” as the most dangerous from
the political point of view.’*^ The Comrade, Zamtudar, Paisa Akhbar, Vakil, Al-
Hilal were widely read by the people. A Benaras Pamphlet entitled Ur-in Najaf in
its February issue of 1912 appealed to the Muslims to raise a handsome amount to
help the Turkish people and told the Muslims not to buy the goods produced in the
Christian nations and to give money to the Government for the manufacture of
arms to be used against their co-religionists. This pamphlet urged the Muslims to
unite against the concerted assault of the West on Islam and Turkey.’**® The
“Comrade” and many other Muslim papers published special war news and they
were in so much demand by the people that the “Nama-i-Maqaddas Habl ul-Matin”
turned from a weekly into a daily. The news flashed by these journals influenced
both the educated and the general mass.’” The “Hablul-Matin” made a passionate
appeal to the Muslims to forge a united front to meet European Challenge and
asked the Government of India to put an end to Italian atrocities in Tripoli.’^® Pro-
Tuikish feelings became so deep rooted in the Indian Muslim’s minds that the
Muslim Press warned England of the dire consequences, if she did not change her
policy towards Turkey. The Mohammadi adopted an openly anti-European and
anti-British attitude during the Italo-Turkish War and advocated boycott of Italian
goods. The paper, which was famous for its Pan-Islamic leanings, received an
impetus in its leanings from the war and from supposed British connivance with
Italy in her atrocities in Turkey.”® Another Muslim Journal entitled “Islam Rabi”
asked the government (o withdraw its notification of neutrality and allow the

Indian Nationalism and Asia 1900-1918

Muslims to show their sympathy and love for Turkey.^®"

What to say of the Muslims and their press, even the Hindu Press sympathised
with Turkey. But the Hindu Press adopted a moderate view. “The Tribune”
denounced the Italian action in Tripoli but also deprecated the indifference of the
Indian Muslims from the affairs of their own country and advised the Muslims not
to boycott Italian goods. Another Hindu paper, the Punjabee, ridiculed the Muslims
for their loyalty to the British Raj which was a fair whether friend likely to desert
the Muslims after making use of them.’®’ Of course, the Hindu papers were sym¬
pathetic towards Turkey and admitted that the Indian Muslims had a just cause for
anger but unlike the Muslim papers, they did not approve of the anti-government
movement on this account and asked the Indian Muslims to desist from all agita¬
tion causing embarrasment to the Government.’®- The Hindu papers in the province
of Eastern Bengal and A.ssam condemned the war and justified the stand taken by
the Indian Muslims but advised the Muslims to desist from boycott of Italian
goods.'®” ‘‘Ihe Mahralta” criticised European nemiality in fare of naked aggression
of Italy in Turkey. The ‘‘Political Bhomiyo” made scathing attack on the alleged
conspiracy of the European powers to destroy Islam. “The “Indian Social Refor¬
mer” held the view that Europeans were sympathetic to the constitutional demo¬
cratic movements in Asian countries because they wanted to promote their selfish
interests by fostering confusion in these countries.'®’

The various meetings held and numerous resolutions passed at those meetings
symbolised the deep sorrow t)f the Indian Muslims over Italian invasion of Tripoli
and the British policy of neutrality. These actions of the Indian Muslims also
reflected the profound sympathy for Turkey and the deep rooted Pan-lslamic ten¬
dencies in the Indian Muslims. In fact, the Italo-Turkish war resulted in an
organised and sustained Pro-Turkish movement and accentuated the Pan-lslamic
tendency of the Ir dian Muslims.’®"' Whereas Pro-Turkish feeling in Indian Muslims
was to a degree the result of the Pan-lslamic sentiments, the sympathy expressed by
Hindus and their newspapers for Turkey were the by products of the Pan-Asiatic
tendency which was developing in India To the Hindus, Turkey represented an
Asiatic power and hence they expressed their solidarity with the Turks who were
inter-locked in a war with a European power.

The years 1912 and 1913 gave a boost to the Pan Islamic movement in India.
Hardly the wounds of the Italian invasion had cured that Turkey was stormed by
another crisis of magnitudes Montenegro, Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia attacked
Turkey. The war popularly known as the First Balkan war started in October, 1912
and continued upto May, 1913 and resulted in defeat and loss of territory to Turkey.
The Turks would have been driven completely out of Europe had not the victors
quarrelled among themselves over the spoils. Bulgaria, which had contributed most
to the defeat of Turkey, wanted all Macedonia, a demand which did not please her
allies who attacked Bulgaria and found willing helt^ers in the Turks. In this sc:ond
Balkan war (June July, 1913) fought by Bulgaria against Greece, Serbia, Rumania
and Turkey, the Turks recovered Adrianople.’®®“ Great Britain adopted a neutral
policy throughout the war, de.spite the repeated requests made by the Indian
Muslims to intervene in the interest of Turkey. The neutral stand of Great Britain
caused resentment against the Brit sh Rule and widened the scope of Pan-lslamism

Indian Nationalism and Asia

in India. The Balkan wars caused widespread anxiety among the Indian Muslims as
regards the British and convinced the Muslims of the Machiavellian trait in British
diplomacy and they were led to feel that the British professions of friendship were
insincere.^®® The Conquest of Morocco by France, the seizure of Bosnia-Herozogo-
vina by Austria, the Italian invasion on Tripoli and the Balkan wars compelled the
Indian Muslims to think that there was a sinister conspiracy amongst the Western
Countries to swallow up Turkish integrity. Indian Muslims began to think that the
Christian powers of Europe were determined to destroy the Ottoman Empire and
the Caliphate, the last vestige of the past Islamic glory. The fate of Turkey espe¬
cially excited the Indian Muslims and stimulated anti-European feelings^in their
hearts. The progress of the unfortunate events in Balkan states was anxiously
watched by those sections of the community which were ordinarily unmoved by
political events.*®® The Muslims of North India eagerly watched the every move in
the game in the Balkans and every reference to the subjects made by British politi¬
cians.**® In fact, the Balkan wars produced intense reaction among the Indian
Muslims, especially in articulate section of the Muslim Community.*®” The dis¬
memberment of Turkey evoked widespread regret in which some non-Muslims also
shared; the fate of Muslim states and the treatment method out to them by Europe
made the deepest and most painful impression on every mind.*®* The war came to
be regarded as "the ultimatum of Europe’s temporal aggression”*®“ and created an
atmosphere of restlessness in the Indian Muslims. The longdreaded trouble in the
Balkans —"a life and death struggle between the leading Asiatic power and four
minor kingdoms of Eastern Europe’’,*®* excited the Indian Muslims who held
several meetings in the various parts of India and passed resolutions denouncing
the Balkan States and prayed for the speedy recovery of the Porte.’®* "The Balkan
Wars’’ wrote Jawahar Lai Nehru, “roused an astonishing wave of sympathy in the
Muslims of India and all Indians felt that anxiety and sympathy’’.*®®

Muslims in Bihar and Orissa expressed their sympathy with the Turks and held
meetings at Patna, Ranchi, Hazaribagh, Chapra and other important towns to raise
subscriptions for the Turkish aid fund. Maulana Mazhar-ul-Haq in a meeting held
at Bankipore on July 13, 1913 delivered an extremely inflamatory speech.’®® In the
United Provinces the Muslims sympathy for Turkey was very widespread. On
December 13, 1912 in a meeting held at Lucknow, the Aga Khan appealed to the
audience to contribute to the funds opened in the aid of Turkey and he himself
contributed one thousand rupees.’®* Sympathy for Turkey had become so deep rooted
that even the Muslim students of M.A.O. College, Aligarh effected savings by cur¬
tailing their diet in order to send money to the Turks.*®* A society of the "Servants
of Caaba’’ was established in Lucknow in 1913 to protect the interests of Islam
throughout the world and particularly to protect the Holy cities of Islam from fall¬
ing into the hands of the non-Islamic powers.*®® Its secretary, Shaukat Ali, also
planned to send volunteers to light on the side of Turkey.®”® Pro-Turkish and the
anti-Christian feeling ran so high in the United Province that a number of tomb¬
stones and crosses at the Christian cemetery at Moradabad were damaged.®”* The
agitation in favour of Turkey and against the British reached such a height that the
situation in U P. seemed to be thoroughly unsatisfactory to the authorities.®"*

The Muslims in Bengal were much ahead than their counterparts in other pro-

Indian Nationalism and Asia 1900-1918

vinces in their sympathy with the Turks. The British Government was severely con¬
demned for her pro-Balkan League attitude. Some newspapers, particularly ‘‘al-
Hilal,’* reminded the Muslims of their religious duties towards the Caliph. Some¬
times even Jehad was preached.”*® Numerous mass meetings in support of Turkey
were held and collections were made to help the Turkish people and at these meet¬
ings the speakers emphasised that the war was a struggle between Cross and Cres¬
cent.®"'* In Calcutta alone, Muslims organised several mass meetings where anti-
Turkish attitude to the British was criticised and resolutions expressing solidarity
with Turkey were passed.®"" Anti- British feeling became so deep in the Muslims of
Bengal that the more advanced sections of the Muslim Community advocated a
Hindu-Muslim coalition and championed the cause of the Hindu Congress party.®"®
It was apprehended by the Government that the Balkan War would bring the
Young Muslim party closer to the Congress.®"’

Pro-Turkish and anti-British feeling was not so high in Madras®"" and in the
Central Provinces,®"" as in other Provinces. Nevertheless the Muslims were sympa¬
thetic to the Turkish people. The Balkan war created a stir among the Punjab
Muslims. The journalists, lawyers, teachers and literateurs condemned the anti-
Turkish attitude of the European powers and showed their concern over the satis¬
faction expressed by the British ministers on the success of the Balkan allies."*" In
the North West Frontier Province the Pro-Turkish feeling was very feeble and sym¬
pathy for Turkey was expressed by a small section of educated men who were in
close touch with the Muslim League and with Mohammed Ali and Zafar Ali, the
editors of Comrade and Zamindar respectively.®” The Muslims of the Bombay pro¬
vince were deeply shocked to learn the British hostile attitude towards Turkey and
made generous contribution to the Turkish aid fund.®*" A public meeting of the
Muslims of Bombay held under the presidentship of Currimbhoy Ebrahim and
passed resolutions sympathising with Turkey.®*® Prayers were offered at Lahore for
the victory of the Turkish arras and subscriptions were raised in aid of Turkish
Relief Fund. A Muslim bank, namely Orient Bank of India proposed to sell its
shates amounting to two crore rupees to the public and give the amount realised

as a loan to the Turkish Government.®*'* j- ,

Pro-Turkish and anti-British moves reached the climax in 1912 when a Medical
Mission organised under Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari was sent to Turkey as a
token of Indian Muslim’s solidarity with Turkey. Maulana Mohammed Ah collected
necessary money for the despatch of the mission to render valuable service to the
suffering Turks. Indian Muslims had so deep sympathy for Turkey that even the
poor subscribed to the funds of the Medical Mission ®'* Muslim writers and poets,
Journals and Press and Muslim religious and political leaders expressed their
unanimous sympathy for the Turks. Muslim Journals like the Comrade and the
Zamidar strongly supported Turkey against her European adversaries and openly
preached Pan-Islamism. Zafar Ali Khan, the editor of the Zamindar, collected
money for the Turkish Red Crescent Society and proceeded to Constantinople to
present the money to the Grand Vizier, For the inflammatory tone of its articles the
security of his paper was confiscated by the government.®*® Mohammed All denou¬
nced the anti-Turkish policy of the British and preached the gospel of Pan-
Islamism.®*’ Indian Muslim’s passionate sympathy for Turkey could be gleaned

Indian Nationalism and Asia

Anti-British feeling became such a common feature with the Indian Muslims
that they lost their faith in the sincerity of the government. The British Prime
Minister Lord Asquith’s speech at the Guldhall banquet on November 9,1912 in
which he predicted the early fall of Turkey was bitterly criticised by the Muslim
Press in India.-'® All the British politicians, who welcomed the success of the Balkan
states, were denounced--" and the statement of Lord Asquith affected the Indian
Muslims profoundly. Lord Hardinge was “bombarded with telegrams of protests,-'-^
and he was disturbed that the young Muslims were getting out of hands"-' and were
creating a separatist tendency away from Aligarh in the minds of the moderate
Muslims.--'' What to speak of the condemnation of the British officials, even Aga
Khan's counsel of moderation published in Times of India on February 14, 1913 and
his advice to the Muslims to bring England and Turkey closer through their loyal
efforts were condemned and rejected by the young Muslims who rebuked the Aga
Khan as an enemy of Islam and a slave of the British.--''Maulana Azad criticised
the pro-British attitude of some of the leaders of the Aligarh school and referred to
them as those heretics and hypocrities who, during the last forty years, had co-ope¬
rated with the satans of Europe to weaken the influence of Islamic Caliphaie and
Pan-Islam Some extremists among the Muslims advocated boycott of European
goods. Leakat Hussain, a prominent Muslim leader of Calcutta, and the few other
Muslim leaders of Calcutta and the few Muslim papers like Muhammadi and AU
Hilal also urged the Muslims to boycott European goods Timely action by the
Government and the lack of organisation among the Muslims stood in the way of
the successful boycott."-’ Some Muslims attempted to raise loans on the security of
the Turkish bonds issued by the Ottoman Treasury. Mohammed Ali supported this
move,""® but the Government of India opposed it and dissuaded Indian ruling chiefs
from accepting these bonds, for, in its opinion, there was no adequate security for
the payment of money raised through them """

Indian Muslims were assisted in their sympathy for Turkey by their Hindu
brethren. Whereas the Muslims were actuated by Pan-Islamic ideas in their support
and sympathy for Turkey, the Hindus in India supported the Turks because they
were Asiatics To the Hindus, the Balkan War was a struggle between an Asiatic
country and European nations. Indian nationalist leaders expressed their sympathy
for Turkey because she was an Asiatic power. A public meeting of the Hindus and
Muslims was held at Calcutta, on November 3, 1912 to express solidarity with
Turkey. Although it was a crowded meeting the Mohammedans were not largely
represented. Bipin Chandra Pal presided over the meeting Leakat Hussain address¬
ing the meeting urged the boycott of European goods and made a fervent appeal
for funds in aid of sufferers in Turkey. Dr. Abdul Gafoor, another speaker, declared
that the Balkan War had threatened Islam in Europe and the duty of Muslims did
not end in merely sending money to the Red Crescent Society. “The duty of the
Mohammedans in Bengal, nay, the whole of India,” Dr Gafoor pointed out, “con¬
sisted in strengthening Turkey and weakening their enemies and that could only be
done by boycotting European goods.” Speaking on the occasion Babu Shyam

Indian Nationalism and Asia 1900-1918

Sunder Chakravarty observed that “the decline of the political ascendancy of Tur¬
key meant the destruction of an ancient culture and civilisation.” He, however,
hoped that the results of the war would have great effects on "Asian solidarity" and
emphasised the necessity of unity between Hindus and Muslims in India. This
disaster of Turkey, he emphatically stated, “would go a long way in making a
solidarity among the different nations of Asia.”““" Bipin Chandra Pal in his presi¬
dential address declared that the meeting was a call from the Indian nationalism for
Turkish nationalism and made an appeal for raising funds to help the Turks.®®^
Hindus’ support for Turkey caused a concern to the government and Hardinge in
his letter to Crew informed that in Bengal Hindu “agitators” intervened “to provoke
and foment Mohammedan resentment” against the British.-"®

The Indian National Congress also shared the sorrows of the Muslim brethren
in India and expressed its concern over ihe fate of Turkey and emphasised the need
for the peaceful settlement of the disputes. Mazhar-ul-Haq, the Chairman of the
Reception Committee of the twenty-seventh session of the Indian National Congress,
declared that the Balkan war was not a war against the Turks but a war to turn
Muslims out of Europe, a war between the Cross and Crescent and a war between
the Asiatics and the Europeans.- *® He further criticised the British policy of indiffe¬
rence to the Muslim cause and pointed out that this attitude for the British minis¬
ters had deeply offended the sentiments of the seventy millions of Mussulmans of
India.®®* Rao Bahadur R.N. Mudholkar, the president of the twenty-seventh
session of the Indian National Congress, expressed profound sorrow and sympathy
which the Hindus and all non-Muslim Indians felt for their Muslim brethren in the
great misfortune that had overtaken the Caliphate and added that as a subject of
Great Britain which was neutral in the war, it was not proper for him to lake sides
between the belligerents but “as staunch believers in the supremacy of the moral
law and upholders of the principle of peaceful evolution, this much I believe is
permissible to us to say,” declared the president, “that it is possible to satisfy the
just and the legitimate aspirations of the Christian provinces of the Turkish Empire
without destroying the existence or the importance of Turkey or subjecting her to
the humiliating condition of powerlessness.”-’®’ Nawab Syed Muhammad, the presi¬
dent of the twenty-eight session of the Indian National Congress, also pointed out
that the disastrous results caused by the Balkan War had unnerved the Indian
Muslims and the dismemberment of Turkey by depriving her of her European
provinces had evoked widespread regret in which non-Muslims also shared. He
further declared that the defeat of turkey, while i'. had caused intense grief and
depression to the Islamic world, had at the same time brought Muslims closer
together in a way that nothing else was capable of doing.®®® The intense heat of Pan-
Islamic tendency did not leave the Aga Khan unmoved. Even the Aga Khan wrote
in 1914 :

“For more than two years past the Moslems of India, in common with their
co-religionists in other countries, have been going through the most painful
experience. Tlte Turkish loss of sovereignty in Northern Africa and in the Bal¬
kans, the continued disintegration of Persia, the treatment of Indians in South
Africa, and certain matters of Indian administration, have all deeply affected
Indian Moslems. The Mohammedans of India, newly awakened to national

Indian Nationalism and Asia

In the beginning of 1914 it seemed that a war would break out in Europe. The
Indian Muslims began to review their attitude in case of a war between Turkey and
Britain. Mohammed Ali thought that in the event of a war between Britain and
Turkey, he and his followers would have to take sides and that they would certainly
support Turkey. When the First World War occured and Britain declared war on
Germany on August 4, 1914 the Muslims of India found themselves in a dilemma.
On August 31, 1914 Mohammed Ali sent a wire to the Sultan of Turkey in which
he urged the Sultan of Turkey either to support Britain or to keep neutral in this
war.®®* Turkey joined Germany against Britain on November 4, 1914. The Muslims
became puzzled and what to do was the problem before them. Mohammed Ali and
his followers ranged themselves with Turkey against the British Raj. In May, 1915,
Mohammed Ali and his brother Shaukat Ali were arrested for openly justifying
Turkey’s entry into the war against Britain and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was
also placed under surveillance at Ranchi for his Pro-Turkish attitude.®^®

Even during the stormy days of the First World War some of the Indian natio¬
nalists did much to co-ordinate their freedom struggle with other Asian nations to
get foreign assistance to wipe out the British Raj. Some of the Indian revolutionaries
approached the German Government for arms and monetary assistance which was
granted to them Raja Mabendra Pratap and Barakatullah along with Dr. Von
Hentig, German Legation Secretary, came to Kabul and persuaded the Amir of
Afghanistan to invade India. This mission, on its way to Kabul, was given grand
reception in Turkey. Raja Mahendra Pratap addressed a meeting at Istanbul and
the Sultan handed him a letter for the Amir of Afghanistan. Barakatullah also got a
fatwa from Sheikh-ul-Islam asking the Indian Muslims to co-operate with the
Hindus.®*’ When the mission reached Afghanistan the members were lodged in
quarters within Bahar Garden as the Amir of Afghanistan had promised Lord
Hardinge, the then Viceroy of India, that the aliens entering his kingdom would be
disarmed and their activities would be restricted.®*® But the restrictions on the
mission were lifted when the members of the mission went on hunger strike.®*®

Indian Nationalism and Asia 1900-1918

While the Indian revolutionaries were making efforts to win over Afghmiistan
on the side of Nationalist India, some Muslim students left India in February,
J9J5244 proceeded.to Kabul where they were detained but were released on the
recommendation of Sardar Nasrullah Khan, the Afghan Amir’s brother, and there¬
after they came in touch with the Indian revolutionary leaders working in Afghanis-
tan.^^^ In August, 1915, Maulana Obeidullah Sindhi, a disciple of the Deoband
School, proceeded to Afghanistan to ruin the British Government with the help of
Afghanistan and became successful in enlisting support for India in Afghanistan.
Obeidullah along with Mahendra Pratap, Muhammad Mian Ansari and Barkalullah
held several meetings with the Amir of Afghanistan which resulted in the formation
of the Provisional Government of India on December 1, 1915. Raja Mahendra
Pratap became its President, Barkatullah was made Prime Minister and Obeidullah
was appointed Home Minister so that when the British Government was ousted
from India there would be no difficulty in taking over the administration.-^” This
Provisional Government dealt directly with the Afghan Government and even a
treaty was drawn up between the two. With the help of Sardar Nasrullah Khan, the
Provisional Government organised an army of twelve hundred tribal youths for
making India free.-^’ The Afghan rulers Amir Habibullah Khan, and, to a greater
extent, his successor Amamullah Khan, were secretly in sympathy with this Provi¬
sional Government of India.*^” Habibullah, though in sympathy with the programme
of the Indian revolutionaries, maintained a neutral policy and was able to avoid
any clash with the British.^” This Provisional Government sent two missions, one
to Japan and another to Turkey. Sheikh Abdul Kadir and Dr. Mathura Singh
led the mission to Japan and Abdul Bari and Dr. Shujullah went on Turkish
mission but the members of both the missions were arrested and the plan could not
succeed."®"

Shortly after Obeidullah left India for Kabul, Maulana Mahmud Hasan, the
head Moulvi of the Deoband School, along with Mian Ansari and few others left
for Hejaz to make a direct contact with the Turkish Government and to seek mate¬
rial help for the plan against the British Rule. During his stay at Hejaz Maulana
Mahmud Hasan met the Turkish Minister of war, Anwar Pasha and General Jamal
Pasha and told them about his revolutionary movement and asked them for help.
At his request three documents in Arabic, Persian and Turkish signed by Anwar
Pasha and Jamal Pasha were handed over to him. They had the same contents,
expressed in different languages sympathising with the Indian demand for indepen¬
dence and promising help to it.-®^ Mian Ansari proceeded with this document
known as Ghalibnama—to Kabul and met Obeidullah there. Obeidullah wrote a
long letter to Mahmud Hasan urging him to secure the active co-operation of the
Turkish Government and of the Sheriff of Mecca, and describing the scheme of a
Pan-Islamic army—the “Army of God’’—with headquarters at Medina, and subor¬
dinate Commands at Constantinople, Tehran and Kabul. These letters were dated
July 9, 1916 and were addressed to an agent in Sindh with instructions to forward
by a reliable messenger to Mahmud Hasan. These letters were written on pieces of
silk cloth and they were carried to India by a family servant of two students who
had left Lahore and gone to Kabul. The servant met the father of the two boys
with their news and the father handed over the letters to the British authorities,-'®^

Indian Nationalism and Asia

who got valuable information as to the sympathisers in India, interned about a
dozen persons and took other necessary preventive steps. Thus, the Silk Letters
Conspiracy, an attempt of the Indian revolutionaries to ruin the British Raj with
the help of other Asian nations, came to a miserable end.-*'^®

Meanwhile Indian Muslims heard the news of the revolt of the Sheriff of Mecca
against the Turkish Empire. The news caused considerable anxiety among the
Muslims of India. Anxiety became more profound and vocal when it was known
that the British were instrumental in bringing in this rebellion against the Turkish
Empire. At first the news was not believed by the Muslims and Abdul Bari, the
president of the Indian Pan*Islami.sts Organisation “Anjuman-i-Khuddam-i-Kaaba”,
who was a personal friend of the Grand Sheriff, disbelieved the news and with a
view to verify it he proposed to send a deputation of Indian Muslims which was
also to act as a pcjccmaker between the Arabs and the Turks but the proposal did
not matcrtalise.' '* Throughout India the Muslims condemned the action of the
Sheriff. An emergent meeting of the Council of the All India Muslim League held
at Lucknow on June 26, 1916 placed on record its diep abhorrence of the action of
the Arab rebels headed by the Sheriff of Mecca and condemned them and their
sympathisers as enemies of Islam.

A public meeting was held at Lucknow on June 27,1916 and a resolution
disclaiming the report of the Statesman, an English owned-paper, that Indian Mus¬
lims welcomed the revolt was passed.It was generally believed that Britain was
responsible for the Sheriff’s treachery and Muslims of Bombay and Calcutta dis¬
approved of the actions of the Sheriff.-” Mohammed Ali Jinnuh warned the British
Government not to interfere with the future of the Caliphate because this would
lead to the dissatisfaction among the Muslims of India and reminded the British
Government that “the loyalty of the Mussalmans of India to the Government is no
small asset”."®**

Muslims of Delhi condemned the Sheriff for endangering the safety of the
holy places by his action.-®® On July 6, i9i6 a meeting was held under the presi¬
dentship of Shamsul ulema Sayed Ahmad, who was considered to be most loyal to
the British, and a resolution was passed expressing confidence that the British
Government would keep to the very letter the promise with regard to the Holy
Places held out to the Muslims at the beginning of the war,®*" The local unit of the
Muslim League and the Central Mohammedan Association of Calcutta held meetings
to express their views on the Arab revolt and the Muslim League passed a resolu¬
tion condemning the Sheriff and his sympathisers At a meeting held at Dacca
the Sheriff was condemned as a “traitor”.-'®- Muslim feelings in the North West
Frontier Provinces and the neighbouring areas of Kanpur and Lucknow ran very
high and the Government found indications of trouble in Delhi, Bombay and
Calcutta ’ In Lahore, a group of the Punjab Muslim League passed a resolution
condemning the Sheriff’s action'"®* and the Vakil, Kisan and Alsar published articles
condemning the Sheriff’s revolt and also warned the British against lending aid to
the Sheriff in maintaining his independence.-®® Abdul Bari, the president of the
Anjuman-i-Khuddam i Kaaba sent a telegram to the Viceroy condemning the action
of the Sheriff “the impudent besieger of the tomb of the Holy Prophet and his
sympathisers” who were the “enemies of Islam”.®®® The Nizam of Hyderabad and

Indian Nationalism and Asia 1900-1918

the Begum of Bhopal refrained from expressing their resentment at the Sheriff’s
action but they also did not come out in support of the Sheriff’s action.-®’

A study of the Indian National Movement and its attitude towards Asian
people during 190U and 1918 would reveal that India evinced considerable interest
in Asian countries. Of course, the Indian nationalist leaders were awefully busy with
their demands for self-government and their whole energy was mobilised to secure
it. Nevenheless, they did not remain aloof from the currents of developments in the
Asian continent. The Indian National Congress openly criticised the British expan¬
sionist policy in Asia and expressed sympathy with Asian countries in hours of
distress. Nationalist India shared the pleasure of the achievements of Japan and the
latter became a model for India. India’s concern for Persia, China, Burma and other
Asian countries indicated the growth of Asian consciousness. Indians in general and
the Muslims of India in particular stood as one man against Italy and Balkan
powers when they were interlocked in war with Turkey. Beyond doubt, Indian
Muslims in their sympathy with Turkey were, to a considerable degree, working
under the influence of Pan-Islamic ideas and religious sentiments. But to the Hindus
and to the Indian National Congress Turkey was an Asiatic power and thus while
championing the cause of Turkey they thought of championing the cause of Asia
against Europe. In other words, in Indian atmosphere pan-Islamism was converted
into Pan-Orientalism by the Indian nationalists. Thus, Asianism as a marked
feature of Indian nationalist thinking had emerged during the years 1900-18.

Indian Nationalism and Asia

REFERENCES

'SurHidra Nath Banerjee, Speeches of Bobu Surendra Nath Banerjee, Vol. VI. (Calcutta,
1908) p. 327.

^Gopal iCrishaa Gokhale, Speeches of the Honourable G. K. Gokhate (Madras, 1920) p. 915.
'^Report of the Twenty-First Indian National Congress, (1905), p. 13.

*Lord Hardiuge, My Indian Years ; Remlnisceness, (London, 1948), p. 115
*Lady Minto, India, Minto and Morley (1905-1910), (London, 1935), p. 298.

®Haridas and Uma Mukherjee, Sri Aurobindo's Political Thought (Calcutta, 1958) pp. 63-123.
’M.A. Bucb, Rise and Growth of Indian Militant Nationalism p. 25.

®BaI Gangadhar Tilak, Two Remarkable Speeches (Sylhet, 1907) p. 6-
**Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Writings and Speeches (Madras, 1907) p. 56
*"W.T. de Bary, Sources of Indian Tradition, p. 722.

^^B.C. Pal, Speeches Delivered at Madras (Madras, 1907) p. 21.

i^Lajpat Rai, “The Coming Indian National Congress—Some Suggestions" Koyastha Soma-
char, November 1901, pp. 376-85.

’“Lajpat Rai, "The Principles of Political Congress’', £oj/and BVsr, August, 1902, Vol. I.
p. 1040.

Punjab Native Newspaper Reports 1900-1921, Paisa Akbhar, December 12 and 13, 1905.

Report of the Sedition Committee, 1918, Chapter 11.

^*Surendranath Banerjee. A Nation in Making, p. 187.

Report of the Twenty Second Indian National Congress, p. 83.

Wftid., pp. 87-89.

*®N.C. Sen Gupta, “The Boycott Movement”, The Indian Review, May, 1909, p. 351.

^Report of the Twenty Second Indian National Congress, p. 83.

21 The Bengalee, December 7, 1907-

2*Aurobindo Ghose, An Open Letter to His Countrymen, p. 4.

2®C.Y. Chintamani, Indian Politics Since the Mutiny (London, 1940) p. 79.

2^S. Bhima Sankara Roy, The 22nd Indian National Congress, 1907,1.O.L. Tract, 1028.
s^Ambika Charan Majumdar, Indian National Evolution, pp. 108-24. See M.R. Jayakar, The
Story of My Life, Vol. I (Bombay, 1958) p. 82.

. Rajkutnar, Development of the Congress Constitution (New Delhi, All India Congress
Committee, 1949) pp. 14-15.

2’Rajendra Prasad, India Divided, p. 87.

2*R.S. Wasti, Minto and the Indian Nationalist Movement, 1905-1910, (Oxford, 1964) p. 29.
29Quoted in B.N. Pandey

•"H.G. Rawlison, in The British Achievement in India (London, 1948) pp. 185-86.

2iLady Minto, India, Minto and Morley, p. 47.

2®Afzal Iqbal, (ed) Select Writings and Speeches of Maulana Muhammad AH (Lahore, Ashraf,
1944) p. 255.

32RaJendra Prasad, India Divided, pp. 112-13.

Amrita Bazar Patrika, October 4,1906.

35John Buchan, Lord Minto : A Memoir, p. 224.

39Morley‘s letter to Minto, dated October 26,1906, Lady Minto, op. cit., pp. 47-48.

3’M.S. Jain, The Aligarh Movement, its Origin and Development, pp. 153-54.

39s. Razi Wasti, op. cit., p. 76.

3®Lady Minto, op. cit., pp. 47-48.

•"Rsjendra Prasad, op. cit., pp. 112-15.

®iRamsay MacDonald, Awakening of India, p. 176.

**B.L. Grover, British Policy Towards Indian Nationalism, p. 88.

«AB- Rajput, Muslim League Yesterday mtd Today, (Lahore, Ashraf, 1948) pp. 19-20.

''•S.R. Mehrotra, India and the Common Wealth, p. 181.

*9Nawab Viquar-ul-Mulk’s statement. Cited in Ram Gopal, Indian Muslims: A Political
History, pp. 101-2.

Indian itationatism and Asia 1900-1918

**Report of the Twenty-Ninth Indian National Congress, 1914, p. 1.

^’Chowdhury Khaliquzzaman, Pathway to Pakistan (1961) p. 28.

*^Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms, 1918 (London, 1918) p. 5.

*®VaIentine Chirol, India, Old and New (London, 1921) pp. 159-60.
soAndrews and Mukherjee, op. cit., pp. 2S9-61.

‘^Khalid B. Sayeed, Pakistan: The Formative Phase 1857-1958. (1968) p. 45.

*^Ibid. p. 39.

^^The Times of India, December 30,19J6, January 1 and 2,1917.

^‘'Sukumar Rajan Das, “Tagore and Indian Nationalism”, Indian Review—Wo). XXXXV,
1944, p. 10.

‘^^Sisir Kumar Mitra, op. cit., p. 251.

Werner Levi, op. cit., p. 19.

®’Cited in Sisir Kumar Mitra, op. cit., 251.

®*SatyapaI and Prabodh Chandra, Sixty Tears of Congress, p. 152.

'^'‘Report of the Proceedings of the Nineteenth Indian National Congress, 1903, (1904)
p. 24.

^India, No. 309 (New Series), December 4, 1903-
Report of the Twentieth Indian National Congress, 1904. p. 44.

**Lord Curzon in India-Speeches, Vol. II. (London, 1906) p. 222.

«®7'Ae Amrita Bazar Patrika, February 18,1905-

®*Sukumar Ranjan Das, '‘Tagore and Indian Nationrdism", Indian Review; Vol. XXXXV,
1944, p. 10.

^^The Hindustan Review and Kayastha Samachar, Vol. IX (New Series, Allahabad, 1904)
p. 299.

•®r/;e Indian Review, Vol. VI, 1905, p. 272.

•’’Cited in R.P. Dua, The Impact of the Russo-Japanese {1905), War on Indian Politics (New
Delhi, 1966) p. 23.

••TAc Bangalee, March 26, 1905.

•®J.L. Nehru, Glimpses of the World History (New York, 1942) p. 834.

’•J.L. Nehru, An Autobiography (New Delhi, 1962) p- 16.

”D.G. Karve, (ed) Speeches and Writings of Gopal Krishan Gokhle, Vol. II. (Bombay, 1966).
p. 178.

’‘‘^G.K.GoVMe," Self-Government for India", Asiatic Quarterly Review, New Series 3, XXII,
1906, p. 243.

’•Gopal Krishna Gokhle, Speeches of the Honble G.K, Gokhle, p. 819.

’*B.G. Tilak, Writings and Speeches, p. 330.

’•Ram Gopal, Lokmanya Tilak : A Biography (Bombay, 1956) p. 285.

’•Vartan Gregorian, The Emergence of Modern Afghanistan, (1969) p. 209.

”D. Mackenzie Brown, Indian Political Thought : From Ranade to Bkave (1961), pp. 8-9,
and 72.

’•Paul F. Power, Gandhi on World Affairs, pp. 56-57.

’•Chamanlal, Secrets of Japan (1937), p. 20.

••Lovett, A History of the Indian Nationalist Movement (London, 1921), p. 237.

•discount Morley, Recollections, Vol. II, p. 154.

•2R.G. Pradhan, India's Struggle for Swaraj, p. 75.

••C.F. Andrews, The Renaissance in India, (London, 1912), p- 4.

•*ft/d., pp. 5-6.

•®7Ae Daily Hitavadi, June 12,1905.

••TAc Amrita Bazar Patrika, January 14,1905.

•’TAe Sultan (Calcutta), March 24, 1905.

••Pratijna, Cited in R.P. Dua, op. cit., pp. 51-52.

••TAe Bangalee, February 8, 1905.

••Quoted in Lancelot Lawton, Empire in the Far East, Vol. II (London, 1912) p. 806.

*^bid.

Indian Nationalism and Asia

^“Congress Presidential Addresses, 1911-1934, Second Series, pp. 311-12.

Report on the Native Newspapers of Bengal, p. 587.

^^Ibid.

95Valentine Chirol, India, p. 113,

**R.C. Majumd.ir, “The Gene.sis of The Studies in the Bengal Renaissance (td)

by Atulchandra Gupia, (Jadavpur, 1958) p. 201.

*’Lovett. A History of the Indian Nationalist Movement, p. 229.

99John Cumming (ed), Political India, p, 54 and 228.

•9R.P. Dua, op cit., p. 89.

UMiTripura Hitaishi (Comilla), June 20,1905, ia Report on the Native Newspapers of Bengal,
pp. 632-33.

101 Vartan Giegorian, c//., p 209.
in-iTAe Bengalee, lone 12. 1905.

Jo;>Sant Nihal Singh, "Indian Students in Japan," Indian Review, September 1906, p. 673.

lOiValcntinu Chirol, Indian Unrest, p. 148.

105R.P. Dua, op. cit., p. 61,

tenjhe Indian July, 1906, p. 550.

>''«Rani Gopal, Lukmanya Tduk, p, 233
iwjln- Japan Weekly Mail, May 5, 1906.

it«Shun Saitoh (cd) Japan and India (Kyobashi Tokyo, 1912), pp. 220-27.

''iJames A.B. Scherer, JapanV Advance (Tokyo, 1934) pp. 99-102.
t i-Shun Saitoh, (cd) Japan and India, p. 300.
tfSThe Indian Review, Vol. VJIJ, June 1907, p- 480.
tt^The Bengalee, June 15. 1905.

ri“Ramananda Chatterjee, (ed). Towards Home Rule (Calcutta, 1917) Part J, p. 147.

119/Wt/., p. 148.

'Incited in East (Calcutta) July 16, 1905.
tt^Lancclot Lawton, op. cit., p. 807.
ii» 5 an//v«n/, (Calcutta), November 27, 1905.

i joRaroananda Chatterjee (cd). Towards Home Rule, Part II, pp. 97-98.

jaiSbun Saitoh, op. cit., p. 1.

rs-The Japan Weekly Mail, April 7, 1906.

vi'sThe Bengalee, January 12, 1905.

n^The Japan Weekly Mail, April 78, 1906,

125/Wd., May 26,1906.

itoibid.

1 ‘-’Quoted in Lancelot Lawton, op. cit., p. 805.
i‘i8Quoted in R.P- Dua, op. cit., p. 54.
t^nbid., p. 49.

1 ‘iOOgata Taketora. “Mitsuru Toyama*’, Contemporary Japan, July 1940, Vol. IX, No. 7,

^ tat Valentine Chirol, op. cit., p. 147.

raiiM.M. Ahluwalia, Freedom Struggle in India, 1858-1909 (Delhi, 1965) p. 204.

laairving S. Friedman, '^Indian Nationalism and the Far East," Pacific Affairs, No. XIII,

March, 1940, p. 18.
uiibid.

135D.B- Mathur, Gokble, A Political Biography, pp. 210-19.
isBRuchi Ram Sahni. The Awakening of Asia (Lahore, 1929) p. 28,

W’DN. Verma, “Indian and A.sian Solidarity, 1900-1939," J.B.R.S., Vol* XLIX, 1963,
Tt* 319*

^ WBRajani Palm Dutt, India Today. (Bombay, 1947), p. 445.

t8»Ziy8-ul-Hasan Faruqi, The Detdtand School and the Demand for Pakistan, (1963)

p. 54.

P'rom Dominion Independence Resolution {1919-29)

to foster closer political understanding between themselves.^-^ Amanullah’s pan-
Islamic and anti-British policies won him general applause in India and Muham-
med Iqbal, the great Indian poet philosopher, dedicated his famous poem Payam-i-
Mushriq (The Message of the East) to the Afghan Amtr.®^®

King Amanullah introduced a number of social, economic, educational, military
and cultural reforms in Afghanistan and gave a new constitution to the Afghan peo¬
ple. Like Kemal Pasha, King Amanullah wanted to make Afghanistan a progressive
and modern state.‘^“’ Indian people viewed these developments with satisfaction. The
All India Muslim League at its session at Calcutta in December, 1928 placed on
record its sincere and warm appreciation of the splendid efforts that were being
made by Amanullah to make Afghanistan a great and progressive country,

In December, 1927, King Amanullah along with Queen Souriya and an olTicial
party set out on a tour of Europe > /(J India His visit to India evoked a widespread
enthusiasm among the Indian people. On the news that the Afghan King would
come to India, Maulana Shaukat Ali appealed to all Congress, Khilafat, Muslim
League and other n itionalist organisations and all public men to wire to Amanullah
“messages of welcome and goodwill to show our neighbourly friendly feelings to¬
wards the good king of Afghanistan...with whom we the people of India desire to
live at peace and amity”."®

King Amanullah reached Bombay on December 9, 1927 and was accorded a
warm reception by the Indian people. The Afghan King wanted to meet imprisoned
Gandhi but the British Government did not allow him to see the Indian leader.
While in India king Amanullah delivered frequent speeches calling for Hindu-Mus-
lim Unity,-®” and spoke of Islamic solidarity and was in turn hailed as the King of
Islam.®®' Amanullah urged his co-religionists in India to free themselves from the
control of the Mullahs. “I would urge you once again,” said the Afghan King, “and
warn you over and over again, not to be led away by fanaticism or by ignorant
Mullahs. Be careful. Work out your own Salvation’*.®®®

Amanuliah’s visit to India aroused widespread nationalist and pan-lslamic senti¬
ment in India. Mohammed Shah, the Pre.sident of the All India Khilafat Conference
held at Madras in December. 1927, welcomed the visit of the King of Afghanistan
and supported the Afghan King’s suggestion for an Asiatic League. Speaking on the
occasion Maulana Shaukat Ali declared that Amanullah was going to Europe to
gain knowledge and experience with a view to start an Asiatic League and wished
him success in his endeavours.®®®

This enthusiasm for the Afghan King was not confined to the Muslims alone,
it was shared by the Hindus too. The All India Hindu Mahasabha held at Madras
in December, 1927, tendered its respectful and profound thanks to king Amanullah
for the very king regard shown by him to Hindu religious feeling in the matter of
respect for the cow and for the advice which he gave to the Mussulmans of India
to respect Hindu sentiments in this matter.®*^

Amanuliah’s liberal reforms antagonised the orthodox Afghans who began the
attempt to sabotage the reforms introduced by Amanullah. Indians viewed these
developments in Afghanistan with alarm and anxiety. The All India Muslim League
in 1928 appreciated the liberal reforms introduced by Amanullah and condemned
the actions of the rebels and those who were creating troubles for the King and

Indian Nationalism and Asia

expressed its hope that Amanullah would become successful in crushing the rebellion
and in his scheme to place Afghanistan in the front rank of the nations of the
world.In the meeting of the Subjects Committee of the Indian National Congress
held in December, 1928, Basheer Ahmed made an abortive attempt to record a
resolution to congratulate Amanullah on his attempt to modernise Afghanistan.
But, Sir Prakash opposed the resolution and stated that the Afghan King did not
deserve congratulations of India, if he shot down people to compel them to wear
hats and shave off their beards.-^® However, sympathy admiration for Amanullah’s
modernising efforts were not lacking in India. A message was sent to Queen
Souriya of Afghanistan by the students and the staff of the Kanya Mahavidyala,
Juliundur (Girls College, Julluodur) appreciating the reforms which were being intro¬
duced in Afghanistan affecting the general weal of Womankind ihere.*®^

The various reforms introduced by Amanullah were disliked by the orthodox
Afghans and widespread uproar against the reforms started in Afghanistan.”®® Anti-
Government demonstrations were held and one Bacha i-Saqo organised an army
and captured Kabul. Thereupon, Amanullah abdicated the throne in Ja nuary, 1929
in favour of his brother Inayatullah but mounting pressures of Bachacompel led
Inaytullah also to abdicate. Bacha proclaimed himself the ruler of the country,
cancelled all the reforms of Amanullah and promised to establish the rule of Islamic
Law in ail its purity.-'^'-*

Indians watched these developments with great concern. Jawaharlal Nehru
pointed out that all Congressmen had been following with the keenest anxiety the
happenings in Afghanistan and they had felt sympathy for Afghan gallant King.®'®
The Working Committee of the Indian National Congress at its meeting in Delhi in
Februray, 1929, noted with grave concern the internal troubles in Afghanistan and
the reactionary attempts made there to put an end to the reforms introduced by
Amanuallah. The Committee whole hcartedly sympathised with the progressive
elements in their endeavour to make Afghanistan a united and progressive nation.®'"
Dr. Satyapal, the President of the Punjab Provincial Political Conference held on
March 8, 1929, expressed .sympathy with Amanullah.'^® The U.P Political Con¬
ference held on April 1, 1929, expressed pleasure at the success of Amanullah and
the progressive elements in Afghanistan and hoped that they would soon win
through."‘'® The Bengal Provincial Conference held on April 2, 1929, expressed
its sympathy with Amanullah in his difficulties and prayed for his immediate resto¬
ration to throne to enhance the glory of Afghanistan and all Asia.®^'

The British India Government was also criticised for its alleged sympathy with
the rebels against Amanullah. Officially, British India Government maintained
neutrality throughout the Afghan turmoil but the British instigated split and internal
quarrel among the Afridis and Orakzais, the two tribes on the British side of the
Durand Line, who were sympathetic to Amanullah and thus prevented aid from
reaching Amanullah. One Mullah Mahmud Akhundzada. who played a dominant
role in creating split among the tribes, was generally regarded as a British agent on
the border for preventing the tribes from giving aid to Amanullah against his rivals.®®^
Thus attitude on the part of the British towards Afghan turmoil caused considerable
agitation within India and mass meetings in many cities like Bombay and Lahore
were organised and a number of petitions asking the government for permission

P^rom Dominion Independence Resolution (1919-29)

to take part in *^Amanullah Days** were made. On January 7, 1929 the government
had to invoke its police powers to prevent any accusations of complicity from
appearing in the Indian papers.”® An overcrowded meeting was held in the Albert
Hall, Calcutta, to express sympathy with Amanullah and Sir P. C. Roy, who moved
the main resolution , pointed out that vast majority of the audience consisted of the
Hindus.®^’ The '‘Amrlta Bazar Patrika'’ condemned Nadir Khan, one of the rivals
of King Amanullah, for his anti-Amanullah activities and expressed its indignation
at the policy of the British India Government in allowing those persons to go to
Afghanistan via India, who are causing so much unrest in Afghanistan although the
Government of India pretended to be strictly neutral.-'*®

Zafar Ali Khan, in his message to Nadir Khan, appealed to Nadir Khan’s
good sense to think twice before taking an irrevocable step which would plunge
Afghanistan into trouble. Indians as well as all right thinking Afghans wrote Zafar
Ali Khan and wanted Amanullah back.®*® Giving an estimate of the sympathy the
Indians had for the liberal Afgan King Amanullah, the Modern Review of February,
1929 wrote that there was general desire among Indians for the re-establishment of
King Amanullah on the throne of Afghanistan and for prosperity and full freedom
of that country. It further wrote ; ‘^Indians, irrespective of race and religion, were
among his admirers and well-wishers”.®®" Amanullah’s image in India remained
untarnished even after his downfall. In an interview with the “Associated Press”
on February 19, 1929, Aga Ahmed L Khajn called Amanullah “an ideal ruler** and “a
patriotic king.**"^^

In 1920’s informed public opinion in India became more conscious of the
Asian neighbours and the country which aroused most the interest of the Indian
people was China struggling hard to maintain her political entity and territorial
integrity against the heavy onslaughts of the Western imperialists. Tradition of long
friendly relations between India and China followed by the common problems that
confronted them created a new sense of relationship between these two nations.
Fighting as they were for their own independence the Indian nationalists realised
that the Chinese also must not be denied the right to have their own say in their
own houses. As the Indians and the Chinese were engaged in more or less the same
pursuit “out of this common struggle against imperialism”, wrote P.C. Chakravarti,
“emerged new desire to help each other and learn from each other”.*®® The progress
of the Chinese nationalist revolution during. 1 925-27 awakened an enthusiastic
response in India.*®’ In their attempt to get rid of the clutches of the Westren
imperialists, especially Great Britain, the Chinese nationalists launched a boycott
movement which posed a serious threat to the British economic stronghold over
China. Indian nationalists did not simply watch the Chinese boycott movement;
they also inspired, to some extent, the Chinese nationalists. It had been suggested
that the Chinese boycott of British goods was influenced by the Indian Civil
Disobedience Movement of 1920-21*®'*. Sun Yat Sen, the great Chinese leader, in
his lecture on the methods of nationalism, which was later incorporated into his
Three People’s Principles, admitted that the Indian non-co-operation movement had
been a lesson for the Chinese nationalist movement and urged the Chinese people
to boycott the British goods as people had done in India.*®®

As India constituted the main base to sustain British imperialism in Asia,

100

tndian Nationalism and Asia

Indian resources in men and money were always used to protect British interests in
Asia and whenever there arose a nationalist movement in any part of Asia threat¬
ening the existence of British domination Indian soldiers were sent to crush that
movement. Indian nationalists considered it as a misfortune that while they were
themselves fighting for independence, the Indian soldiers should fight against
nationalist struggles in other parts of the globe. When the Chinese launched a
widespread boycott of British goods the British India Government saw a danger to
its own economic interests in this boycott movement in China. To suppress that
movement the British Government of India sent Indian troops to China. In 1925.
Gandhi received a cable from the Commissioner of Foreign Affairs of the National
Government of China complaining against the use of Indian soldiers for shooting
the innocent Chinese people at the behest of the Government of India. Indian pub¬
lic opinion which was opposed to the use of Indian men and money for that
annihilation of nationalist movement in any part of the world, took up the cause
of China and Gandhi, who had emerged as an undisputed leader in India by that
time, described the use of Indian troops in China a humiliating and shocking
spectacle, if true, and assured the Chinese that if Indians had any voice in the
determination of the policy of the government they would not have tolerated such
a thing The All India Congress Committee at its meeting at Patna in Septem¬
ber, 1925 expressed its sympathy with the Chinese in their struggle for maintaining
political entity of China and strongly protested against the despatch of Indian
troops to China.*”

Public opinion in India became more critical of the policies of the Government
of India when the latter sent additional Indian troops to China to crush the wide¬
spread Chinese nationalists’ urge for freedom. Although the Government of India
sent the troops to China on the ground that they were being sent to protect the
lives of the British residents from the fury of the revolutionaries but the Indian
people smelt rat behind the despatch of Indian troops to China and availed of the
opportunity to assert their .solidarity with the Chinese people. On January 26, 1927,
the Congress leader, Srinivas Iyengar moved an adjournment motion in the Legisla¬
tive Assembly to know whether there was any special arrangement between the
Imperial and the Indian Government as to the payment of the cost of despatch of
the expedition to China from India and he asked whether the Government of
India was entitled to send troops without consulting the legislature.^^* On January
27, 1927, S. Satyamurti moved an adjournment motion in the Madras Legislative
Council to urge upon the Government of Madras to represent to the Government
of India the opinion of the House that it wholly disapproved of the action of the
Government of India in sending Indian troops to China as it was without reference
to the Legislative Assembly.^**

A mass meeting of the citizens of Delhi was held on January 28, 1927, to pro¬
test against the despatch of Indian troops to China against the wishes of the Indian
people Among the distinguished audience were Tej Bahadur Sapru, Saklatwala,
Moti Lai Nehru, Srinivas Iyengar, Mohammed Ali, Asaf Ali and Ramaswami Iyen¬
gar. This meeting of the citizens of Delhi expressed sympathy for the Chinese
people in their national aspirations and in their elforts to realise them and emphati¬
cally condemned the action of the Government of India in despatching Indian

from Dominion Independence Resolution {1919-29)

101

troops to China against the wishes of the Indian people and without consulting
their representatives in the legislature.®®" In an interview with Chapala Kant
Bhattacharya on January 30, 1927, Rabindranath Tagore, expressed his condemna* j
tion of the British policy of sending Indian troops to China and characterised the i
expedition of the English against China as a crime against humanity and regretted j
that to the utter shame of Indians, India was being used as a pawn in the game, j
“Enslaved as we are”, observed Tagore, “to our utter shame, we are being used as|
instruments for forging fetters for other people. In a crusade against justice, free- j
dom and morality where the English are the aggressors India is being draged into/
the field against her own will.’’®®^ '

India’s sympathy for China was so widespread and universal that the people
belonging to every walk of life expressed their solidarity with China and resented
the despatch of Indian troops to crush the rising national spirit in China. On
January 31, 1927, “Hindu Congress Extremists’’®®^ held a meeting in Delhi and
condemned the Government of India for despatching Indian troops to China. The
students of Visbvabharati in a meeting on January 31, 1927 passed a resolution
expressing sympathy with China in her struggle for freedom and internal peace.
The meeting considered the policy of the British Government in sending Indian
troops to China as condemnable as this was determioental to the growth of
friendly and cultural relations between India and China.®"® Commenting upon the
despatch of Indian troops to China Gandhi wrote : “Our helplessness becomes never
so apparent as when Indian soldiers are shamelessly used to crush other people’s
freedom. Indeed India is key to the exploitation of the Asiatic and other non-
European races of the earth. She is held under bondage not merely for the sake of
her own exploitation but that of her neighbours, near and distant. Here then there
is an outlook which no self respecting Indian can accept.

Assuring the Chinese of the Indian sympathy and expressing India’s helplessness,
Gandhiji told the Chinese that Indian soldiers had gone to China only because
Indians were more helpless than the Chinese but he trusted that China would come
out successful of this muddy state of affairs.®"® Mohammed Ali in a statement issued
on February 3, 1927 expressed his profound sympathy for China and declared that
he would lay himself down before train carrying Indian soldiers to light against
China.®"® In a protest meeting held at Calcutt a on February 5 ,^1927^ the citizens of
Calcutta regarded the despatch of Indian troops to China as an act of imperialism
and recorded their emphatic protest against the policy of the Government of
India.®"® The Working Committee of the Akali Dal at its meeting in Amritsar
passed a resolution expressing sympathy with the Chinese people.'"® The Bombay
Provincial Congress Committee in a meeting on February 7, 1927 condemned the
British policy in China and granted a sum of rupees 151 for demonstrations to be
held in all wards of the city against the despatch of Indian troops to China.®"" The
Working Committee of the Indian National Congress in February, 1927 expressed
its dissatisfaction on the arguments used by the British Prime Minister and the
Foreign Minister as to the necessity of sending troops to China and demanded
that the Indian troops sent there be brought back to India forthwith and called
upon the country to insist on the Government’s compliance with the demand.®®"
The Central Committee of the All India Khilafat Conference at its meeting held at
Lucknow on February 26, 1927 expressed its full sympathy with the Chinese

JQ2 Indian Nationalism and Asia

struggle for freedom and condemned the British Government for sending Indian
troops to China.®’^

As Indian people were not free to decide their course of action they could not
do more than expressing their solidarity with the Chinese people. The seventh session
of the All India Trade Union Congress held on March 12, 1927 at Delhi under the
patronage of Srioivas Iyengar, Lajpat Rai and Madan Mohan Malviya, protested
against the despatch of Indian troops to China and called upon the Government of
India to call back all Indian troops from China.**’® The Forward in its editorial under
the caption **China and India*' maintained that the sympathy of India for China in
her struggle for freedom was deep and sincere and noted with concern the despatch
of Indian troops to China to play the part of hired assassins and described it as an
outrage on Indian feeling.®’® The same daily assured the Chinese that theirs would
be the ultimate victory,®’* and expressed sympathy with the Chinese people and also
regretted the helplessness of the Indians in doing nothing to prevent this outrage.®’”
The annual session of the Bengal Provincial Conference held in April, 1927, dissociat¬
ed itself from the military policy of the British Government. While it disapproved of
the policy of the government, it assured the Chinese of the sympathy and goodwill
of the Indian people in their hour of trial.*’® The Kerala Provincial Conference
held at Calicut on April 16, 1927 expressed its heartfull sympathy with the people
of China in their struggle for freedom and placed on record the sense of humilia¬
tion and resentment of the people of India at the action of the British Government
in compelling India to be a party to her unworthy imperial adventures in China.*”

, The tenth session of the All India Hindu Mahasabha at its meeting at Patna in
: April, 1927, desired an early termination of the civil war in China and expressed
j concern over the attempts of the foreigners in that land to crush the new Chinese
' spirit of independence.*’® T h e Andhra Provincia l Congress in its meeting in May,
1927, resolved that th e All indi a~C onfiress Committee s hould make a don ation of
not less than ten thiou^nd ru pees t o the Cantonese Goveni^me nt a s a mark of pro-
test against the action of the Goven ment of In dB" calculated t o obst ruej.. Chinese
independence. Tt further requested ail village and district Congress committees' to
show their sympathy towards the Chinese by making liberal donations.*’®

Realising fully the spirit of the Indian people the All India Congress Commi¬
ttee jn j^y 1^, assured the Chinese of its fullest sympathy in their struggle for
freedom and condemned the Government of India for despatching Indian troops to
China and demanded their immediate withdrawal from there.*®” The Committee also
appreciated the proposal of the Hindustani Seva Dal to send an ambulance corps
to China and appealed to the country to give its moral and material support to
this humanitarian work for a friendly nation. It also called upon the All India
Board of the said Dal to take all necessary steps in that direction.*®* Commenting
upon this gesture of goodwill the Forward wrote in its editorial that “the Hindus¬
tan Seva Dal’s project of sending an ambulance corps to China on a medical miss¬
ion would prove the sincere love and sympathy. The Indians had for the Chinese
people. All the overpowering feelings of admiration and sympathy which Indians
entertained for the Chinese nation in its hour of glory and peril had, for want of
any proper channel for natural outflow, been enshrined in this small project,’* the
paper concluded *®* T.C. Goswami, the President of the All India Volunteer Board,

103

From Dominion Independence Resolution ( 1919-29)

tried to secure the necessary passports for the Medical Mission but the Govern¬
ment of India refused to grant the necessary passports on the ground that the
Mission had certain definite political purposes. And thus the plan could not mate¬
rialise.®®®

Political Conference at its 2lst session at Aligarh on November 25,
1927 expreseed sympathy with China and emphatically protested against the des¬
patch of Indian troops to China.*®^ The Forty-Second session of the Indian Natio¬
nal Congress held at Madras in 1927 unanimously condemned British refusal to
issue necessary passports to the Indian Medical Mission to be sent to China and
sent its warmest greetings to the people of China. It assured them of its full sym¬
pathy in their fight for emancipation. The Congress noted with grave concern the
despatch of Indian troops to China to further British imperialist designs and to
hinder and prevent the people of China from attaining their freedom. It further
demanded the immediate withdrawal of all Indian troops and police forces from
China and advised Indians not to go to China in future as agents of the British
Government to fight or work against the Chinese people, who were the cbmrades of
the Indian people in their just struggle against imperialism.'^ *

Jawaharlal Nehru was full of sympathy for China and desired an intimate
relation between China and India. Speaking at the Punjab Provincial Conference
held on April 11, 1928 Jawahar Lai Nehru told the Punjabis that their gallant
soldiers had been exploited enough in the past not in India alone but in the four
quarters of the world. Even at the time they were made to “do the dirty work of
British imperialism in China”®®® which had done no harm to the Indians. “It was
the time.” Jawahar Lai concluded, “Indians should put an end to this shameful
exploitation of the courage of Indian manhood.”®®® In the World_ Youth Peace.
Coiigteisji eld in Holland in A ugust. 1928 t he Indian Youth deTpgatinn
concei m ove rJh e fate of China and crit icis ed British Policy- in-China."®® The 43rd
session of the Indian National Congress held at Calcutta in 1928 congratulated the
people of China on their having attained their full and complete freedom and
nationhood and having ended the era of foreign domination of their country. It
also expressed its solidarity with China.®®®

Nationalist leaders in China were also full of sympathy for the Indian people
in their struggle for freedom. Madam Sun Yat Sen, who wanted to attend the Con¬
gress sessio n_in 192 &. could not attend the session because the British Government
refused to grant purport to her. In a letter to the Congress Madam Sun Yat Sen
declared that this pH^fjract, however, would not prevent her from sending a message
to assure Indian people that the cause of Indian independence “continues to com¬
mand the interest and sympathy of all true followers of Sun Yet Sen who died
wishing success of the Indian nation in the struggle for freedom, and who looked
upon that struggle as a part of the larger movement of Asia towards the social
readjustments rendered necessary by the material developments of the West.”®'”’
Continuing she advised the Indian leaders that if Indian independence was to be
realised they must secure the wide and active support of the masses of the workers
and peasants of India.®®^ The Indian National Congress, which spearheaded the
nationalist movement in India, did not have a well-thought and well-knit foreign
policy before 1920. In November, 1921 the All India Congress Committee

1U4

Indian Nationalism and Asia

passed a resolution which was the formal declaration of independence from the
British foregin policy and that was the first formulation of the foreign policy which
a free and Independent India would like to adopt. Through the resolution
the Congress made it known to all the neighbouring and other countries that
the then Government of India in no way represented the Indian opinion and that
the traditional policy of British Government had been guided by considerations
more of holding India in subjection than of protecting her borders. The Congress
stated in clear terms that India as a self-governing country could have nothing to
fear from the neighbouring states or any state as her people had no designs on any
of them and hence no intention of establishing any trade relations hostile to or not
desired by the people of such states.

The Congress further pointed out that the people of India regarded most
treaties entered into with the Imperial Government by neighbouring states as mainly
designed to keep India in subjection. It urged upon the neighbouring states having
no ill-will against the people of India and h-iving no desire to injure her interests to
refrain from entering into any such treaty with the Imperial Government.-”" Estab¬
lishment of friendly relations with the neighbouring Asian Countries became one
‘■of the chief objectives of the Congress. Keeping in view this objective the Madras
/Congress of 1927 asked for the withdrawal of Indian troops from Mesopotamia and
• Persia and from all British colonies and foreign countries wherever they might be
In 1928, the Congress declared that the Indian struggle was a part of the general
world struggle against imperialism and hence desired that India should develop
contacts with other countries which were also lighting against imperialism. The
Congress also decided to open a Foregin Department in its ofllce to develop such
contacts.^"^ This Congress assured the people of Egypt, Syria, Palestine and Iraq of
its full sympathy with them in their struggle to free themselves from the Clutches of
the Western imperialism which was also a great menace to the Indian struggle for
freedom."”^

India’s zeal for promoting Asian solidarity received impetus from her partcipa-
tion in the several conferences in which she played commendable role. In 1926 a
Pan-Asiatic Conference was held at Nagasaki. Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Korean
and Japanese nationals were present in this Conference. There were much bomba¬
stic and ideal talks but little result came out of its high sounding proposals The
Conference however, was one of the strands in the wind of Asian solidarity.'^®”
India’s active role in the Conference helped the growth of Asian consciousness in
India.

India’s urge for friendship with Asian countries, her desire to co-ordinate
Indian freedom struggle with the similar movements in the neighbouring countries
and her ambition to create a common understanding among the oppressed nations
of Asia got much encouragement from the Congress_ j;)f Oppressed Nationalises
Jie ld at B r ussels. Belgiu m, in Fphniary, 197 7 The Brussels dongfess"gave the
biggest boost to Asian solidarity and India’s active role in the Congress gave a
definite shape to India’s Asian policy.

It was a conference or an assemblage of the representatives of the exploited
and suppressed nations of the world along with the sympathisers from the imperial
pountries One hundred seventy four mandated delegates, representing 31 countries

From Dominion Independence Resolution {1919-29)

105

and a number of interested guests, not mandated, were present in the conference.
Despite various difficulties delegates had come from Africa, Mexico, Indonesia, Indo¬
china, Egypt, India, Korea, the Philippines, China, Persia, Algeria, Tunis, Morroco,
Syria and Arabia. Besides these delegates the workers’ organisations of England,
France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, the United States and
Japan sent their spokesmen to the conference. China had sent 30 delegates, represent¬
ing the Kuomintang, the Canton Army, the Canton Government, various students,
and women’s organisations. Jawahar Lai Nehru was the accredited representative of
the Indian National Congress Some of the leading nationalists of Asia attended the
meeting. Mohammed Hatla. who later became the Vice-president of Indonesia and
Ho-Chi Minh, who became the president of North Vietnam, took part in the deli¬
berations of the Congress. The Congress was summoned with the active support
and sympathy of Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein, Henri Barbusse, Remain Rolland,
Madam Sun Yat Sen and Mahatma Gandhi. In his message to the Congress,
Gandhi thanked the organisers for the invitation accorded to him and regretted his
inability to take part in the Congress and wished the conference a success.^**’

Jawahar Lai Nehru played an active role in the Brussels Congress and on one
occasion he presided over the meeting of the Congress. In his speech at the Con¬
gress Nehru made a frontal attack on British imperialism for her policy of plunder,
exploitation and repression in India and Asia and laid stress on the indissoluble
link between the exploited and freedom fighting nations because there was much
in common between them. He highlighted the need and the significance of the con¬
tact between the various enslaved peoples as it would lead to better understanding
of each other’s problems and the co-operation thus generated would bring freedom
nearer home. He frankly admitted that on account of India other lands had suffer¬
ed and were suffering still. Referring to the use of Indian troops for the suppres¬
sion of nationalist movements in Asian countries he said that the list of such nations
where Indian troops had been employed was horrifying one. Indian troops had been
used in China, the Persian Gulf, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Syria, Tibet, Afghanistan
and Burma.

He further declared that even at the time of the deliberations of the Confere¬
nce Indian soldiers were being used against Chinese nationalists. Condemning the
despatch of Indian troops to China and expressing India’s solidarity with the
Chinese people. Nehru observed that it had been a matter of shame and sorrow to
Indians that the British Government should venture to send Indian troops to
China to coerce the Chinese and to suppress their nationalist movement. He infor¬
med the Brussels Congress that the whole of nationalist India was with the Chinese
brethren in their hour of trial. “India to-day is with China”, remarked Nehru, “not
only because she has every sympathy for her. but because she feels that China’s
successful fight is the most hopeful sign of the future downfall of imperialism.”^®*
Continuing Nehru pointed out that India was the key to the exploitation of all
Asia and the emancipation of India was necessary for the emancipation of the
mankind. It is important for you if we win freedom”, Nehru told the nations of
Asia present at the conference, “not only internal freedom but freedom also to
make connections with our neighbours and other lands as we wish.”^®® He urged
the subject nations to co-operate together and to form a common front against

106

Indian Nationalism and Asia

imperialism and expressed the hope that the Brussels Congress would help in bring¬
ing about this co-operation among the oppressed nations.^”

The Brussels Congress lasted for six days and throughout the session imperi¬
alism was condemned and need for closer collaboration among the exploited nation
was emphasised. It discussed issues related to far and wide but China and India
were the main topics of discussion. Too much reference to India and China raised
the protest that the Congress was proceeding as if "it was almost an Indo-Chinese
one.”®**^ After six days of hard labour the Brussels Congress passed forty resolu¬
tions out of which four resolutions were of utmost interest to the Indians and the
Asian countries. The Congress assured support to the Indian National Movement
in the task of emancipation of India,®®® But the most important, from purely Asian
point of view was the resolution issued jointly by the Indian and Chidese delega¬
tions. The joint declaration referred to the time long intimate and close cultural
ties between India and China and stressed the need of the revival of that lively
contact between the two neighbours who were facing forced isolation caused by the
intrigue of the British imperialists. Condemning the use of Indian men and money
against the Chinese people the joint declaration hoped that Indian leaders would
co-ordinate their struggle with that of the Chinese people so that by simultaneously
engaging British imperialism on two of its most vital fronts, China might get active
support in her struggle.®"®

India’s sympathy with Asian nations was not confined to China alone. Nehru
expressed solidarity with Mesopotamia where Indian soldiers were stationed to
suppress the people. Indian clerks and employees had also taken part in the exploi¬
tation of that country. It was thus in the fitness of things that Nebra demanded the
recall of the army from Mesopotamia and declared that Indians would not be a
party to this imperialist adventure and exploitation.®"*

Nehru viewed this Brussels Congress with much hope and he requested the
Indian National Congress to affiliate itself with the League against Imperialism, the
permanent body established by the Brussels Congress. Nehru pointed out that India
would derive many benefits from its affiliation with the League against Imperialism
and among the advantages were the opportunities to keep in touch with many
Asiatic and other countries with problems not dissimilar to Indian problems. He
further declared that since long the Congressmen had been demanding that India
must establish contacts with foreign countries so that India might inform the fore¬
ign countries the real state of affairs in the country. As India’s resources were limit¬
ed he told the Congress to utilise the League against Imperialism as a means of
foreign propaganda without spending much on this work. India could not remain
indifferent to rapid changes taking place in the world and this League, Nehru hop¬
ed, would play an important role in future as a League of Nations of Peoples, a
truer one than the League of Governments which sat at Geneva. On the request
and personal initiative of Nehru the Indian National Congress was affiliated to the
League against Imperialism.®"®

In his report to the Indian National Congress Nehru mentioned that there was
a very strong desire amongst the representatives of Asia for a closer bond between
Asiatic countries. Every Asiatic delegation affirmed the need of mutual co-operation.
The Chinese delegates were very eager to develop close ties with Ipdia and to receive

Prom Domtrdon Independence Resolution (1919-29)

107

Indians in China as accredited representatives of the Indian National Congress, or
as students or as visitors and were ready to afford all facilities to Indian students
desirous of reading in China.^"*^

Though there was a strong desire amongst the Asiatics to develop mutual co¬
operation but nothing practicable could be suggested. Nehru, however, thought that
the League against Imperialism would offer the Asiatics a common meeting ground
and all the national organisations could remain in touch with each other through
this League. Nehru also urged the Indian National Congress to invite fraternal
delegates from other countries and to co-ordinate Indian struggle with the similar
movements in other countries.

The Brussels Congress influenced Nehru and through him the Indian National
Congress. It was an event of first class importance'*"” and helped Nehru to under¬
stand some of the problems of the colonial and dependent countries.*"" The
Brussels Congress left an indelible mark on India’s attitude towards her neighbours
and the most significant and positive result of the conference was the re-establish¬
ment, after a long period of mutual isolation, of the direct and friendly contacts
between India and China. The joint declaration of the Indian and Chinese delega¬
tions and the protests made against the despatch of Indian trops to China and
Mesopotamia symbolised the deep and profound love and sympathy Indian people
had for China and Mesopotamia. At . _the.Brussels_Q)ngtess the Sino-lndia n Co-
operation was recognised to be the kejir to Asiatic .HberaUon. This realisation of
which the joint Indd-Chihese declaration was the result, became of utmost signifi¬
cance for it was destined to become the pattern for all subsequent formulations of
Indian policy towards her neighbours.*'"

After the First World War the idea of Asian solidarity became one of the
ideals of the Indian politics. This idea of solidarity gave place to the talk of
regional integration or Asiatic Federation. To translate into institutional form the
concept of Asian solidarity Indian nationalist leadeis began to talk of Asiatic
Federation. “Behind this urge for Asian unity”, Bimal Prasad significantly
observed, “lay not only a feeling of strong cultural and political bond with Asian
countries, but also the realisation that their coming together would improve their
chances of security, equality with Europe and a voice in world affairs.”'"”^ The Aga
Khan wrote in 1918 that a Southern Asiatic Federation should be created of which
India would be the pivot, embracing” a vast agglomeration of states, principalities,
and countries of Asia, extending from Aden to Mesopotamia and from the two
shores of the Gulf of India proper, from India proper across Burma, and including
the Malay Peninsula and thence from Ceylon to the states of Bokhara and from
Tibet to Singapore’’.*^* Thereafter, the idea of Asiatic Federation became a coveted
theme for discussion among the Indian leaders who envisaged several schemes for
Asiatic Federation.

Gandhi in the Young India dated April 14, 1920 appreciated the common
spirit of the Asiatic struggle for freedom and lent his support in favour of the
scheme for regional integration in Asia. Gandhi wrote: “Common lot no less than
territorial homogeneity and cultural affinity is bringing the Asiatic races wonder¬
fully together, and they now seem determined to take their fullest share in the
world politics”.**" The scheme for Asiatic Federation got the approval of the Indian

108

Indian Nationalism and Asia

National Congress in 1922 when C.R, Das, in his presidential address, urged India’s
participation in the great Asiatic Federation which he saw in the process of for¬
mation. “I have hardly any doubt”, remarked C.R. Das, “that Pan-Islamic move¬
ment, which was started on a some what narrow basis, has given way or is about
to give way to the great Federation of all Asiatic people. It is the union of the
oppressed nationalities of India”.®^'* He further observed: “Our freedom must be
woo by ourselves but such a bond of friendship and love of sympathy and co¬
operation, between India and the rest of Asia, nay between India and all the liberty
loving people of the world, is destined to bring about world peace”

The idea of Asian federation was never again permitted to die and discussion
took periodically at all the important meetings. In his presidential speech for the
All India Khilafat Conference held at Gaya in 1922, Dr. M.A. Ansari stressed the
need of a Pan-Asiatic movement to bring about the solidarity among the people and
countries of Asia with a view to rescuing them from the political and economic
bondage of Europe. He suggested that missions should be sent on behalf of India
to establish friendly relations with peoples of different Asiatic countries and missions
elected by the people of foreign lands should be invited to India for the same
purpose. Dr. Ansari further suggested that the plenary session of the Asiatic
Federation might be held at a suitable place, preferably in India at the time of the
annual session of the Indian National Congress. Pointing out the advantages that
would accrue to India from Asiatic Federation he appealed to the Indian people to
give a lead in the matter.“^“

Other political associations in India also wanted some sort of regional integ¬
ration in Asia. In his presidential address to the All India Muslim League held in
March, 1923, Bhurgri discussed the practicability of the scheme for Asiatic Feder¬
ation and optimistically pointed out that signs were not wanting of such a federation
of states—areal League of Nations coming into being. Continuing he observed;
“Some people think the idea of a League of Oriental Nations to be a dream, but
when I notice the aggression of Europe against Asia and Africa, the behaviour of
the white races towards the coloured peoples and colour prejudice in some of the
Western countries, I clearly see the early realisation of this dream”.®*’ In a reso¬
lution the All India Muslim League declared that the people of India would parti¬
cipate in the formation of Federation of Eastern countries with the object of mutual
help in the matter of trade and commerce and to free themselves from the economic
exploitation by Europe and with a view to enlarge and support the Oriental Culture
and to maintain good and friendly relations between the various nationalities all
over the East.

At the annual meeting of the Congress held at Coconada in 1923, Mohammed
Ali commended the idea of Asiatic or Eastern Federation and expressed his pleasure
at the attempts made by Hindu leaders for establishing closer relationship with
other Eastern countries. Appreciating the Asian outlook of the Hindu leaders
Mohammed Ali stated that their political ideas had scaled the ramparts of the
Himalayas and the most of the surrounding seas as they recognised that the free¬
dom of every Asiatic Nations would help their own freedom and therefore they
contemplated an Eastern Federation He further pointed out that the first step in
the establishment of the Asiatic Federation was taken by Gandhi at Amritsar in

trom Dominion independence Resolution (1919-29) 109

1919, when he identified himself wiih the cause of the Khilafat. Mohammed AH
asked his co-religionists in India to forget the internal differences with the Hindus
and to support the latter in the task of the formation of an Asiatic or an Eastern
Federation.®*®

Asiatic Federation became the theme of all political deliberations in India. In '
her presidential speech for the Indian National Congress held in 1925 Mrs. Sarojini/
Naidu endorsed C.R. Das's plan for the creation of the Asiatic Fcderation.®'®|
S. Srinivas Iyengar, the Congress president in 1926, discussed the possibility of|
such an organisation and pointed out that the time” has perhaps come for us <
seriously to think of a Federation of the Asiatic peoples for their common welfare, j
So long as our neighbours were ruled by irresponsible autocrats, such an idea was /
clearly out of question. Now that Angora, Persia, China and Siberia are governed i
by democracies, a federation of Asiatic democracies will make for peace, prosperity ;
and freedom of Asia and therefore comes within the range of practical politics.”®®* i
The Congress President further suggested that in order to promote better under*
standing between India and other Asiatic countries frequent intercourse or visits by
appropriate delegations should be arranged. He told the Indian people that for
long Indians had neglected the possibilities of a cultural and business union with all
Asiatic countries and urged them to explore all means and ways to effect a good
understanding between India and other fellow Asiatic countries.®*® A Govinda
Charyulu, the Chairman of the Reception Committee of the Andhra Provincial
Conference held in November, 1926, called upon all the Asiatics to organise them¬
selves into a Confederation for self protection. It was the duty of the Congress, he
said, to take initiative and all possible steps for the immediate formation of the
Asiatic Federation. Criticising the composition of the League of Nations and the
stronghold of the Europeans over it, be stated that the League of Nations could not
protect the coloured subject races of Asia against the tyranny of their white master.
He advised the Asiatic people to wake up and disown their belief upon the mission
of the League of Nations and organise into a federation.®*®

The scheme for a federation of Asiatic nations was looked upon with favour
by Dr. M.A. Ansari, the President of the Indian National Congress in 1927.
Making an appeal for the formation of an Asiatic Federation, the only hope that
could check the mounting imperialist forces, he regarded India as the key-stone of
the arch of British imperialism in Asia and declared that India held in her bands the
remedy for this universal misfortune. He thought that once India was free the whole
edifice of imperialism would collapse like a pack of cards. To Dr. Ansari, the best
guarantee for the freedom of Asia was a free and self governing India Dr. Ansari
declared that the only hope of success in checking the forces of European imperial¬
ism consisted in Eastern nations coming closer and taking a more intimate interest
in the problems facing them. Explaining the special role India had to play in such a
scheme for Asiatic Federation, Dr. Ansari observed that fortunately Indians were
so placed that a part of their population (Muslim population) had cultural affinity
with countries in the west of Asia while another part (Hindu population) had simi¬
lar relationship with the countries lying in the east of the continent. There economic
problems were also more or less similar. “Common culture and common interest
should, therefore”, Dr. Ansari remarked, “facilitate the consummation of the

tndian Nationalism and Asia

scheme of an Asiatic Federation”.®^®

The idea of an Asiatic Federation bad become so popular with the Indian
leaders that in 1928 the Congress adopted a motion directing its Working Commi¬
ttee to correspond with the leaders of other Asian countries and take necessary
steps to hold the first session of a Pan-Asiatic Federation in India in 1930.®®“

Closely associated with Indian attempts for Asian solidarity and an Asiatic
Federation was India’s claim for special status in Asia. While advocating the
scheme of Southern Asiatic Federation the Aga Khan stressed the pivotal position
of India in such a scheme.®®^ Since then the concept of India as the pivot in the
continent became a fashion for the Indian leaders. Keeping in view the economic,
political strategic and geographical status of India, Tilak wrote to Clemenceau, the
President of the Versailles Peace Conference, that a free India could be a powerful
Steward of the League of Nations in the East for maintaining the peace of the
world and a leading power in Asia, if not in the world.®®®

From Dominion Independence Resolution {1919-29) 1 11

REFERENCES

M. Panikkar, Asia and iVestern Dominance, p. 259.

2Jan. Romein, op. civ, p. 39.

®K.M. Panikkar, op. civ, p. 195.

‘Upton Close, The Revolt of Asia (1927) p. 118.

^Stanley Rice, The Challenge of Asia (1925) p. 27.

®D. Graham Pole, India in Transition (1932) p. 22.

’K.K. Datta, Speeches and Writings of Mahatma Gandhi Relating to Bihar 1927-1947 (I960)
p. 327.

®M.R, Jayakar, Story of My Life, Vol. 1, p. 272.

®Khalid B. Sayeed, op. civ, p. 47.

’®J,L. Nehru, Autobiography, pp. 46-47.

”Pattabhi Sitaramayya, The History of the Indian National Congress, Vol. I. pp. 202-4.
‘‘^Khaliquzzaman, op. cit; p. 57.

’^K.K. Datta, Renaissance, Nationalism and Social Changes in Modern India, p. 53.

“Kanji Dwaradas, India's Fight For Freedom (1966), p. 149.

‘"M.H. Suiyid, Mohammed Ali Jinnah. A Political Study, p, 186.

‘®V.B. Kulkarni, British Statesmen in India (1961) p. 290.

”D.G. Tendulkar, Mahatma, Vol. II. p. 236.

“’B.R. Nanda, The Nehru s Motilal and Jawaharlal (1962) p. 205.

Indian Annual Register, 1923, Vol. II; p. 143.

~^The Indian Quarterly Register, 1924, Vol. I, p- 70.

-‘K.K. Datta, Renaissance, Nationalism and Social Changes in Modern India, p. 60.

'-'Report of the thirty-ninth Indian National Congress, 1924, pp. 38-41.

‘^'■ilbid, pp. 25-26.

-^The Times of India, December 30, 1926.

-SRajcndra Piasad, India Divided, pp. 122-23.

-®A Statement Signed by the Secretaiy and the Treasurer of the Kerala Provincial Congress
Committee, Secretary, Calicut District Congress Committee and Secretary, Ernad Khilafat Com¬
mittee and K.V. Gopal Menon Cited in Sankaran Nair, Gandhi and Anarchy, (1922) Appendix-Ill
27Afzal Iqbal, (ed). Select Writings & Speeches of Mohammed Ali Asaraf (1944) p. 307.
28Shaukat Ali to Gandhi. March 4,1927, cited in B.R. Nanda, op. cit. p. 27i.

-®K.M. Munshi, Indian Constitutional Documents, Vol. I. (1967) p. 24.

■“'K.K. Datta Renaissance, Nationalism and Social Changes in Modern India, p. 62.

■*‘r/ic Indian Quarterly Register, 1927. Vol. II, p. 380.

'•^^The Indian Quarterly Register, 1927, Vol. II, p. 443.

33/4// Parties Conference 1928, Report of the Committee appointed by the Conference to deter¬
mine the principles of the Constitution for India, (Allahabad: General Secretary, All India Congress
Committee, 1928) p. 23

3‘K,M. Munshi, op. civ, p. 24.

33J. Coalman, Years of Destiny: India 1926-32 (1932) p. 214.

^^The Indian Quarterly Register, 1928 Vol. II, p. 403.

3’Kanji Dwarkadas, op. civ, p. 341.

38M.H. Saiyid, Mohammed Ali Jinnah: p. 272.

3®M.A. Mehtar, Whys of the Great Indian Conflict (1947) pp. 67-73.

‘“S.M. Ikram, Modern Muslim India & the Birth of Pakistan (1965) p. 95.

Times of India, January 2, 1929.

‘^Maurice Gwyer and A. Appadorai, Speeches and Documents on the Indian Constitution 1921-
47 (1957) Vol. I, pp. 245-47.

‘3M.H. Saiyid, op. ciV, pp. 450-59.

Indian Quarterly Register, 1928, Vol. II, p. 34.

*3R. Dwivedi The Life and Speeches of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (1929) p. 95.

^^Young Indio, July 26.1928.

112

Indian Nationalism and Asia

‘‘'^Pattabhi Sitaramayya, op. cit. Vol. I, p. 330.

Datta, op. cit\ p. 64.

Times, November I, 1929.

®®Lord Halifax, Fulness of Days (1957) p. 120.

6J77te Indian Quarterly Register, 1929, Vol. II, p. 300.

^^The Times, London, January 7, 1918.

^^The Indian Review, January 1919, p. J3.

^^The Indian Annual Register, 1920, Vol. I, pp. 243-44.

55rtiW. pp. 281-82.

pp. 273-74.

^’’Ibid., p. 249
^^Ibid., pp. 250-51.

p. 23.

*oibid., p. 24.

*^Ibid., p. 251.

®^Khalid B. Sayeed, op. cir, p. 47.

«=*Gandhi. An Autobiography, (1949) pp. 401-2
^^The Indian Annual Register, 1902, p. 252.

^^Congress Presidential Addresses, Second Scries, 1911-34. pp. 469-70.

»«lbid.

®^N.V. Raj Kumar, Tne Background of Indian Foreign Policy, p. 41.
p. 411.

•'“T'Ar Indian Annual Register, 1920, p. 458. '

7«/*/V/. pp. 460-62.

’^V.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Op. cif, p. 155.

’^R.C. Majumdar (ed) The History and Culture of the Indian People Struggle for Freedom,
p. 317.

’*Paltabhi Sitaramayya, op. cir, Vol. I, p. 190.

"f'^The Indian Annual Register, 1921, p. 37.

^^Pattabhi Sitaramayya, op. cir, Vol. I, p. 190.
t^The Indian Annual Register, 1921, p. 38.
lUbid.

’“Tendulkar, op. cit; Vol. I, p. 284.

’’^Tlte Indian Annual Register, 1921, p. 39.

“"Khalid B. Saiyeed, op. cit; p, 45,

Indian Annual Register, 1921, p. 39.

H-Pattabhl Sitaramayya, op. cit; p. 191.

®®R.C. Majumdar (ed) The History and Culture by the Indian People: Struggle For Freedom,
p. 329.

«4paUabhi Sitaramayya, op. cit; p. 196.

8“T/ie Indian Annual Register, 1921, p. 43.

“®R.C. Majumdar (ed) The History and Culture by the Indian people: Struggle for Freedom, p.

320.

“’Sibnarayan Ray (ed) Gandhi, India and the World, An International Symposium, p. 167.

““r/ze Times of India, June 25, 1920.

8*S. Mukherjee, Communalism in Muslim Politics and Troubles over India (1947) p. 35.

»0B.R. Ambedkar, Pakistan or the Partition of India, pp, 138-40.

•1 Vartan Gregorian, op. cit; p. 236.

»2Ram Gopal, Indian Muslims, op, cit; p. 144-46.

““Rajendra Prasad, India Divided, p. 121.

»4S. Mukherjee. op, cit, p. 35.

““Arnold Fletcher, Afghanistan: Highway of Conquest (1966) p. 298.

®*r/ic Indian Annual Register, 1921, p. 47-

“’R.C, Majumdar (ed) The Hi.itory and Culture of the Indian People; Struggle for Freedom,
p. 332.

From Dominion Independence Resolution {1919-19)

113

*^The Indian Annual Register, 1921, Part I, p. 49.

Indian National Congress, 1920-23. Being a Collection of the Resolutions of the Congress
and of the All India Congress Committee and of the Working Committee of the Congress from Sep¬
tember, 1920 to December, 1923, (Allahabad: The A.I.C.C., 1924) pp. 6-9.

^^^Englishman, September 8, 1920

The Indian Annual Register, 1921, Part II, p. 131.
iosibid., p. 134.

^o'ijbid., p. 214.

Kitpatabhi Sitaramayya, op. cit., Vol. I. p. 206.
to:>The Times of India, January, 3 1921.

^^"^The Indian Annual Register, 1921, Vol. II, pp. 238-39.

^^Thc Indian National Congress, 1920-23, pp. 101-2-
Majumdar, Jinnah and Gandhi (1966) p. 63.

Indian Annual Register 1922, Vol. I, pp. 238-39.

^'“S.K. Majumdar, op. cit., p. 63.

Indian Annual Register, 1922, Vol. I, p. 270.

“VWd., p. 308.

^'^Congress Presidential Addresses, Second Series, 1911-34, pp. 532-33.

"®Pat(abhi Sitaramayya, op. cit., p. 225.

Indian National Congress, 1920-33. p. 155.

Indian Annual Register, 1922, Vol. 1, Appendix, p. 71-76.

'»9/l)<V/., p. 117.
i -»lbid., p. 128.

’“'Pattabhi Sitaramayya, op. cit., p. 230.

^--Report of the Thirty Seven Indian Nat toned Congress, 1922, p. 1.
i'i.\The Indian Annual Register, 1923, Vol. I, p. 918.

' ‘^^Ibid, pp. 924-26.

Vol. II, p. 193.

'-*>The Indian National Congress, 1920 23, p. 305.

^-"^Young India, September 8, 1921.

Apiil27. 1921.

i'i^Rcport of the Thirty Seventh Indian National Congress, p. 1.

^'•^*^The Indian National Congress, 1920-23, p. 305.

'8'Polak: and others, Mahatma Gandhi, p. 160.

’8-J.L. Uchiu Autobiography (1936) p. 72.

Saiyid, Mohammed AH, Jinnah, op. cit., p. 72.
i8'*M.R- Jayakar, Story of My Life, p. 388.

^85R.C. Majumdar (cd). The History and Culture of the Indian People: Struggle for Fieedoni,
pp. 318-19.

*3®M.H. Saiyid, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, pp. 252-53.
i8’A.B. Rajput, Muslim League Yesterday cmd Today, (1948) p. .37.
i»8Zia-ud-Din Ahmed Suleri, My Leader (1946) p. 52.
i39Anand T. Hingorani (ed) The Hindu-Muslim Unity (1965) p. 9.

^‘“'M.K. Gandhi, Communal Unity (1949) p. 26.

Young India, May 11, 1921.

i42D.N. Verma, India and Asian Solidarity 1900-1939", Journal of the Bihar Research Society,
Vol. XLIX, January-December, 1963, p. 320,

I'tsTfte Times of India, January 3, 1921.

H'>Cited in V.P.S. Raghuvanshi, op, cit, pp, 154-55.
i^i^Kalidas Nag, Discovery of Asia.

14«G.S. Pohekar, “Tagore and Asis,” United Asia, 1948, Vol. I, pp. 50-51.

1'•^Rabindranath Tagore, Nationalism, p. 92.

114

Indian Nationalism and Asia

’'•"Kalidas Nag, “Tagore in Asia,” Rabindranath Tagore-. A Centenary Volume 1861-1961

(1961) p. 340.

p. 341.

1 sosisir Gupta, op. cit., p. 30-
Pohekar, op. cit., p. 50.

is^Kalidas Nag, 'Tagore in Asia,” op. cit., p. 342.
li'iVisvabharati Quarterly, July 1924, p. 199.

is&Man Mohan Ghosh, China's Conflict with India and the Soviet Union (1969) p. 52.
i Chakravarti “Sino-lndian Relations,” in A. Appadorai (ed) India-Studies in Social and
Political Development 1947-67. pp. 258*59.

'•'•'^rhis address has been printed as an Introduction to Tagore's Talks in China, (1924).
J'''HKalidas Nag, “Tagore in Asia," op. cit., p. 343.

^ Pohekar, op. cit., p. 53.

^»»lbid.

'®'P.C. Chakravarti, “Sino-lndian Relations,” op. cit., p. 259.

’“’Nguyen DangThuck, “Tagore in \ittmm," Rabindranath Tagore: A Centenary Volume
1861-mi (1962) p. 360.

’““P C. Chakravarti, “Sino-lndian Relations,” op. cit., p. 259.

’“’M.inmohan Ghosh, China'.'. Conflict with India and the Soviet Union, p. 55.

^<f-Ubid.

^““Nguyen Dung Thuck, op. cit., p. 360.

^^''The Indian Annual Register, 1942, Vol. I. pp. 123-24.

^*^**Cited in India View of China Before the Communist /SleyM/M/MW Hindi-Cheeni in Collabora¬
tion with Dr. Amba Rai, Centres for Int. Studies, Massachusetts, institute of Technology, Cam¬
bridge, Massachsetts, May 18,1955. Its Communication Program, India Project, E/55-15 (Sapru
House Library) p. 2.

'““K/V/e Visvahharati News, June. 1947.

'^“Krishna Kripalani, Tagore: A Lz/e (Malancha, New Delhi 1961) p. 171.

’^’Sonakul Dhani. “Tagore in SvAta," Rabindranath Tagore : A Centenary Volume 1861-1961,
p. 308.

’^-Nguyen Dang Thuck, op. cit., p. 362.

’’’^“Krishna Kripalani, op. cit., p. 176.

^’•G-.S. Pohekar, op cit., p. 52.
nr.Vtsvabharati News, 1924, p. 111.

’““Manmohan Ghosh, op. cit., p. 52.

”’"G.S. Pohekar, op. cit., p. 54.

^“^VhvahharatiNews, 1924. p. 111.

’^“O.S. Pohekar, op. cit., p. 54.

’“^Kalidas Nag, “Tagore in Asia,” op. cit; p. 340.

^’’•’Cited in Krishna Kripalani, op. cit., p. 163.

Young India, January 26,1922.

i«'Ihid.

’“•'Pattabhi Sitaramayya, op. cit,, Vol. I, p. 260.

Indian National Congress, 1924, (Allahabad, The All India Congress Committee, 19?5)

p. 34.

Young India, March 10, 1927.

’““U.R. Rao, “Gandhijl and Asia," United Asia, 1948, Vol. I, p. 60.

’•®J.S. Furnivall, Colonial Policy and Practice (New York, 1948) pp. 142-49.

’“’Nicholas Tarling, A Concise History of South Ea.st Asia, (New York, 1966) pp. 213-214.
^^^The Amrita Bazar Patrika, December, 24,1927.
ta^The Indian Quarterly Register, 1927, Vol. H, p. 380.

From Dominion Independence Resolution (1919-29)

115

“•'■'Mahadev Haribhui Desai, With Gandhiji in Cylon; A Journal of the Tour with Authorised
Version of all Important Speeches (Madras, Ganesun, 1928) p. 44 and pp. 118-19.
iWYounff India, December 1,1927.

India, March 10, 1927.

Indian Quarterly Register, 1929, Vol. IL p. 12.

’®*Y.N, Khanal, Background of Nepal's Foreign Policy, p. 2.

®®®G.P, Bhattacharjee, India and Politics of Modern Nepal (1970) pp. 20-21.

201 The Indian Annual Register, 1924, Vol. 11, p. 486.

202/6,y., 1942, pp. 122-23.

Indian National Congress, 1920-23, p. 300.

204/7,e Bengalee, December 19, 1926.

20i*Irving S. Friedman, "Indian Nationalism and the Far East,” op. cit., p. 22.

India & South East Asia, 1953, p. 32.

^^The Indian Quarterly Register, 1928, Vol- II, p. 372.

208D.N. Mallik, The Development of Non-Alignment in Indian's Foreign Policy (1967) pp- 9-10.
209The Indian Quarterly Register, 1928, Vol. II, pp. 285-86.
aiovartan Gregorian, op, cit., p. 230.

211W. Smith, Modern Islam in India : A Social Analysis, pp. 235-36.

21-S. Abid Husain, op. cit., p. 76.

■itsVartan Gregorian, op. cit.,p. 238,

21 iZiya-ul-Hasan Faruqi, op. cit., p. 60.

^i-^George Lenezowski, The Middle East in World Affairs (1969) p. 240.
sioVartan Gregorian, op. cit., p. 235.

2i7Ziya-ul-Hasan Faruqi, op. cit., p. 60.

-iiTaraknath Das, India in World Politics (1923) p. 76.

C. Majumdar (ed) The History and the culture of the Indian People: Struggle for
Freedom, p. SJ2.

--ORushbrook Williams, India in 1921-3, p. 63.

^^^Young India, May 4, 1921.

•^■^^Ibid.

-''^The Indian Annual Register, 1922, Vol. 1, p. 128.

224/6,V/.. 1923, Vol. I. p. 944.

22'iraraknalh Das, op. cit., p. 80.

22<*M. Ishaque, Modern Persian Poetry (1943) p. 145.

-27Jan Romein, op. cit., p. 202.

‘iisThe Amrita BaJtar Patrika, December 31, 1928,

229/6/rf., December 8, 1927.

2''‘OArnold Fletcher, op. cit., p. 213.

Indian National Herald, December 6, \92S.

20-N. B. Parulekar, “The Future of Islam in India", Asia, Vol. XXVIII, November,
p. 940.

513377,e Indian Quarterly Register, 1927, Vol. II, p. 330.

5!34/6/rf., p. 334.

-^^The Amrita Bazar Patrika, December 31, 1928.

'i^The Indian Quarterly Register, 1928, Vol. II, p. 56.

2327*66 Amrita Bazar Patrika, December 29,1928.

233Sir Pearcy M. Sykes, History of Afghanistan, Vol. II, (I'MO) p. 311.

229Vartan Gregorian, op. cit., pp. 264-65.

^^oCongress Bulletin, 1929-1931 (Allahabad: The All India Congress Committee) January 27,
1929.

i^^Ibld., February 14, 1929.

mphe Indian Quarterly Register, 1929, Vol-1, p. 382.
i*3Ibid.,p. 381.

116

Indian Nationalism and Asia

~‘^^The Amrita Bazar Patrika, Apiil 3, 1929.

2«Ghani Khan. The Pathan*, (1947) p. 48.

’'•Arnold Fletcher, op. eit., p. 123.

Modern Review, Vol. XLV, February 1929, p. 283.

’'•r/ic Amrita Bazar Patrika, April 16,1929.

^i^Ibid., October 29, 1929.

2S0The Modern Review, Vol. XLV, February 1929, p. 283.

25'N.N. Ghosh. “The Afghan Ci\il War 1928-29”. The Modern Review, February, 1930,

pp. 180-81.

®®*P.C. Chakravarti, India-China Relations, (1961) p. 3-
2»3R.P. Dutte, India a To-day, p. 447.

Irvin S. Friedman, op. cit., p. 19.

^MYoung India, July 30, 1925.

^^"^The Indian National Congress, 1925 (Allahabad, the All India Congress Committee.
1926) p. 4.

'^^^Tlie Times, London, January 27, 1927.

2 '“r/«e Bengalee, January 28,1927.

^eoporward, January 29, 1927.

"•'Chapala Kant Bhuttacharya, “Rabindranath on China, why India is a Menace to Asiatic
Freedom”, Forward, February 4, 1927.

-^-The Time.'., London, February 1, 1927.

Bengalee, February 4, 1927.

-«I Young India, February 3, 1927-

zasT/ie Servant of India, 1927, pp. 645-46.

•-atForward, February 5, 1927,

‘^^^The Bengalee, February 5, 1927.

February 9, 1927.

~'^*Ubid., February 17, 1927.

'^tilbid., February 27, 1927.

-"-The Indian Quarterly Register, 1927, Vol. 11, pp. 440-41,

Forward, March 24, 1927,

April 10, 1927.

April 13, 1927.

•n«Thc Amrita Bazar Patrika, April 19, 1927.

‘.’7777,t, Indian Quarterly Register, 1927, Vol. I, p. 408-
27«y6/r/.. p. 421.

27»/6,v/., p. 53.

'i».\Thc Indian National Congress, 1927, (Madras, The All India Congress Committee, n.d-
1928) p. 4.

'^^'Ibid., p. 54.

^'^■Forward, June 10, 1927.

2«»y6iV/.. June 21, 1927.

2«>77ff' Indian Quarterly Register, 1927, Vol. II, p- 341.

Report of the Forty-Second Indian National Congress, 1927, (Madras: The Reception Com¬
mittee, n.d ) p 3.

^“'‘Dorothy Norman (cd) Nehru, the First Sixty Years, p. 633.
i»^lbid.

‘iUHTlic Indian Quarterly Register, 1928, Vol. II. pp. 285-86.

•i»9Report of the Forty-Third Indian National Congress, 1928, (Calcutta, The Reception Com¬
mittee, n.d.), p. 94.

““T/jc Amrita Bazar Patrika, December 21, 1928.

^»ilbid.

From Dominion Independence Resolution (1919-29)

117

Indian National Congress, 1920-23, p. 75.

^^Report of the Forty-Second Indian National Congress, 1927, p, 94.

^^*Rfport of the Forty-Third Indian National Congress, 1928, p. 91.

^*'>1bid, p. 94.

Japan Weekly Chronicle, August 12, 1926-

^*’Bakar Ali Mirza, “The Congress Against Imperialism", The Modern Review, Vol. XLI,
January-June 1927, p. 556

Indian Quarterly Register, 1927, Vol. I, p. 205.

Jansen, op. cit,, p. 30-

sooyy,^ Indian Quarterly Register, 1927, Vol. I. p. 205.

®®^Jawaharla! Nehru, Report on the International Congress against Imperialism held at
Brussels", The Indian National Congress, 1927, (Madras The A.I.C.C., 1928) p. 69.

^'^Ibid., p. 69.

“O-VW., pp. 70-71.

»«*/6iV/., p, 74.

305/6/V/., pp. 75-76.

3»«/6rV/., pp. 77-78.

3«7/W., p. 77.

3''»/6rV/., p. 61.

Nehru, Autobiography (1938). p. 163-
3J'>Iqbal Singh, India's Foreign Policy (1946). p. 13-
*'^B. Prasad, The Origins of Indian Foreign Policy, p. 78.

-Cited in John Pollen, “The Home Rule Problem, H.H. The Aga Khan’s vision of a Greater
India, "Asiatic Review, XIV 1918, pp 430-35.

'•^^^'oung India, April 14, 1920.

•^^^Congress Presidential Addresses. 2nd Series, 1911-34, p. 579.

■'^'^Ibid., p. 580.

^^*The Indian Annual Register, 1923, Vol. I, p. 921.

pp. 932-36.

3‘8/6ii/.. p. 936.

^^^Report of the Thirty-Eight Indian National Congress, 1923 (Coconada; The Reception Com¬
mittee. 1924), p. 78.

‘^'^^^Congress Presidential Addresses : From Silver to Golden Jubilee, I9ITI934, pp. 762-63.
^^^Sriman S. Srinivas Iyengar, His Presidential Addresses of the 41st Indian National Congress
and other speeches, pp. 37-38.

'■^^^The Indian Quarterly Register, 1926, Vol. II, pp- 389-90.

Congress Presidential Addresses ; From Silver to Golden Jubilee, 1911-34, p. 825.

32»/W</.. p. 846-

•ii^Reportof the Foity-third Indian National Congress, 1928, p. 92.

®*^Quoted in John Pollen, op. cit., pp. 430-35.

328Cited in Kiran Mishra. "International Outlook of Indian Nationalism,*’ Afro-Asian and
World Affairs No. 2, 1964, p. 145-

CHAPTER V

CONSOLIDATION OF THE INDIAN NATIONAL
MOVEMENT AND ATTEMPTS FOR ASIAN
SOLIDARITY (1930-1945)

The Lahore Congress in 1929 marked the beginning of a new era in the history
of Nationalist India. The Congress declaration for complete independence invi¬
gorated the national life in India^ and the whole nation observed with hope and
joy January 26, 1930 as a day of deliverance and independence. Millions of Indian
people took the pledge that it was a crime against man and God to submit any
longer to a rule which had caused disaster in India and therefore India must sever
the British connection and attain Puma Swaraj or Complete Independence."

While the whole nation was hopeful and was prepared to sacrifice everything
for the attainment of complete independence, the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, shattered
the belief of the Indian people in the British Government by his statement issued
on January 25, 1930. Lord Irwin declared that the Round Table Conference was
meant only to elucidate the definition of Dominion Status and not to offer a solu¬
tion of the problems that stood on the way to its attainment.® This statement
enraged the Indian people and convinced them that self-determination was out of
the question. Gandhi did not miss the opportunity. Convinced of the mass support
and enthusiasm Gandhi wrote to the Viceroy expressing his reasons for opposing
the British Government in India. Characterising the British rule as “a curse”*
Gandhi presented his eleven demands to the Viceroy on March 2, 1930. He also
informed the Viceroy that if these demands would be conceded, he would put off
the struggle.® On the refusal of Lord Irwin to concede these demands, Gandhi,
authorised by the Congress, launched the civil disobedience movement on March 11,
1930 by setting out on his famous Dandi March. On April 6, 1930 he broke the
salt law by making salt from sea water. Nationwide Civil Disobedience started and
the Government ordered the arrest of all law breakers.® Gandhi’s arrest on
May 4, 1930 intensified the movement which resulted in ninety thousand arrests
by January 1931.’

But the situation improved when Gandhi-Irwin Pact was concluded on March
5,1931. As a result of this agreement all the arrested leaders were released and
the Congress agreed to discontinue civil disobedience and to participate in the
Round Table Conference.® This pact could not solve Indian constitutional problems
and to some Congress leaders it was a retreat for the Congress and for Nehru the

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement {1939-1945)

119

world ended “not with a bang, but a whimper.”® No real understanding could
develop between the congress and the Government. Gandhiji, who attended the
Round Table Conference as the sole representative of the Congress, returned empty
handed on December 28, 1931.^®

The Congress Working Committee at its meeting on January 1, 1932 regretted
the failure of the Round Table Conference and decided to start civil disobedience
which was to include boycott of foreign goods„picketing of liquor shops, foreign-
cloth shops and unlicensed manufacture and collection of salt and civil breach of
non-moral laws etc.^^ The British Government took repressive measures to crush
Civil Disobedience Movement and all Congress leaders were arrested, public gather¬
ings and processions were forbidden and newspapers were fully controlled.^®
Gandhi and Vallabhbhai Patel, the Congress president, were arrested on January 4,
1932. Gandhi was released from Jail in May, 1932 but the Civil Disobedience
Movement could not make a headway on account of Gandhi’s involvement in the task
of modifying the Communal Award given by the British Prime Minister, Ramsay
Mac Donald. This award provided separate electorates for the Depressed classes.’*
Gandhi was shocked and began a fast unto death in September, 1932 to protest
against the Communal Award. The Poona Pact almost doubled the number of seats
reserved for the Depressed Classes.

The Congress temporarily suspended civil disobedience in May, 1933 to facilitate
negotiations with the Government. But the Government’s hesitant mood forced the
Congress to resume civil disobedience in July, 1933 in a symbolic form. Under
Gandhi’s advice the Congress decided in July, 1933 to suspend mass civil disobe¬
dience but permitted individual civil disobedience. Gandhi was arrested on August
1, 1933 but was released on August 23, 1933. From all over the country. Congress
workers followed the lead given by Gandhi and from August, 1933 to March, 1934
a regular stream of civil resisters maintained the compaign.’® The Congress suspend¬
ed the civil disobedience in May, 1934 and agreed to enter Legislature and formed
a Parliamentary Board to run and control elections of members to the Legislatures
on behalf of the Congress.’®

It was in this atmosphere that the Government of India Act, 1935 was born.
The Act provided for a Federation of India consisting of the British Indian pro¬
vinces and the Indian States. The Act introduced a greater measure of autonomy
in the provincial administration and provided for entrusting all the departments
of provincial administration to the care of ministers responsible to legislatures but
subject to the supervision of the Governor.”

The Government of India Act, 1935 did not satisfy the younger section of the
Congress. Nehru called it “a charter of slavery'* which deserved to be rejected “in
its entirety.”^® But Gandhi and Patel were willing to explore the possibility of
working the constitution of 1935 and they prevailed upon Nehru. The Congress
decided to contest the elections.’® The Congress obtained sweeping victory at the
polls in 1937 and it secured majority in six of the eleven provinces of British
India. In the legislatures of Bengal, Assam and North West Frontier Province
the Congress became the largest single party.®® The Congress formed ministries
in six provinces where it had the majority and remained in office till the end
of 1939.

120

Indian Nationalism and Asia

Growth of communal feelings complicated the affairs in India. Jinnah, who
had settled in England, returned to India and revived the Muslim League. The
ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity was now determined to stage a showdown
with the Congress. It seemed that while the Congress stood for the nation against
the British, Jinnah stood for the Muslims against the Hindus domination. However,
Muslim estrangement was not so formidable and sharp in 1935 as it was to be in
the years that followed. No Muslim politician then contemplated the possibility of
the partition of India.During the election Jinnah and his Muslim League did
not manifest an uncompromising anti-Congress or anti-national outlook. He was
quite willing to cooperate with Congress on a nation programme. In one of his
election speeches in 1937 Jinnah declared : “there is no difference between the
ideals of the Muslem League and of the Congress, the idea being complete freedom
for India. There could not be any self-respecting Indian who favoured foreign
domination or did not desire complete freedom and self-government for his
country.--

Jinnah wanted to work out the constitution of 1935 with the Congress provi¬
ded the latter did not challenge the position of the Muslim League as the only
representative organisation of the Muslims.-^ At the polls the Muslim League
could not fare well. Out of 489 Muslim seats the Muslim League captured only
104 seats. Out of 119 Muslim seats in Bengal the Muslim League won only 37 and
in Punjab, it won only one seat out of 48 Muslim seats. Out of 36 and 37 Muslim
seats in the North West Frontier Province and Sindh, the League did not win a
single scat.-'* The results of the election gave a rude shock to Jinnah who began
to do everything possible to revive the dormant Mu.slim League and the compro¬
mising attitude between the Muslim League and the Congress of the election period
began to fade and cracks developed between the two political organisations. In the
United Provinces there arose a controversy over the demand of the Muslim League
for two seats in the ministry which the Congress refused to grant. The Congress
refusal to give two seats to the Muslim League in the Ministry, according to
Maulana Azad, was partly responsible for the creation of Pakistan.-’’ The Muslim
League became furious and began to condemn to Congress rule as the Hindu
Raj.-® To counter the popularity of the Congress and to make the Muslim League
popular among the Muslims Jinnah moved heaven and earth and after the Luck¬
now Session of the Muslim League in October, 1937, ninety branches of the League
were established in U.P, and 40 in Punjab.-^ On the questions of the national
anthem Bande Matiam, Urdu-Hindi and on several other petty issues the Hindus
and Muslims drifted from one another and the Congress and Muslim League moved
into two different directions.

While the Congress and the Muslim League were moving into two opposite
directions, the Second World War started in Europe in September, 1939. On Sep¬
tember 3, 1939, Lord Linlithgow, the Viceroy of India, without consulting the
Indian leaders announced that India was also at war with Germany. This declara¬
tion was a challenge to the Nationalist India. The Indian National Congress resen¬
ted against the Viceroy’s declaration. On September 15, 1939 the Congress Work¬
ing Committee proposed to support the British in the war provided that the British
Government declared their war aims, that they gave an assurance that independence

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement (1930-1945)

121

would be granted to India soon after the war and Indian Constituent Assembly
elected to frame the constitution, and that during the war Indians would be included
in the Central Government to share responsibility and power.®® The Muslim League
was ready to extend co-operation to the British Government if it recognised the Lea¬
gue as the only organisation that could speak on behalf of the Muslims and if it
gave an assurance that no declaration regarding the question of constitutional
advance for India should be made without the consent and approval of the All India
Muslim League nor any constitution be framed and finally adopted by the British
Government without such consent,®®

To rally the Indians to British support the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, in a
statement issued on October 17, 1939 suggested the expansion of the Governor
General’s Executive Council and the formation of a war advisory body representa¬
tive of the all major political parties in British India and of the Indian States.™
Gandhi rejected this suggestion and stated that the Congress had asked for bread
and got a stone.'" The Congress Working Committee on October 22, 1939, describ¬
ed the Viceroy’s statement as wholly unsatisfactory and called upon the Congress
ministries to resign as a mark of protest.*® On October 18, 1939 Jawahar Lai Nehru
urged Jinnah to join Congress in protesting against the government’s policy and
appealed to him to extend his support to the Congress in an hour when India had
been insulted by the British Government.** .linnah did not support the Congress
and tried to persuade the Congress leaders to agree to the Viceroy’s proposal to
expand the Executive Council subject to a settlement with the Muslim League in
the provincial field. But the Congress was adamant.** And consequently the Con¬
gress and the Muslim League moved into opposite directions so much so that when
the Congress ministries in the provinces resigned, Jinnah celebrated December 22,
1939 as a Day of Deliverance from the tyranny, oppression and injustice of the
Congress Raj in the provinces.** This attitude of the Mudim League caused bitter¬
ness in the Congress Circle and Nehru wrote to Jinnah in December, 1939, “It thus
seems that politically we have no common ground and that our objectives are
different. That in itself makes discussion difUcult and fruitless.*' '** This difference
between the Congress and the Muslim League widened in the years that followed.

In an article written on January 19, 1940 Jinnah claimed that Hindu and Mus¬
lims were two different nations and advocated the setting up, both at the centre and in
the provinces. Governments that represented all the segments of Indian society and
disapproved party government as unsuitable to Indian conditions.*’ The rift between
the Congress and the Muslim League reached its height at the Lahore session of the
All India Muslim League held in March, 1940 where the hope for a united India
got an electric shock when the famous Pakistan Resolution was passed.** This was
the parting of the ways between the Muslim League and the Congress which pointed
out that these two organisations would not march together.

However, the Congress did not accept it that Hindus and Muslims constituted
two nations. In his presidential speech at the Ramgarh session of the Congress held
in March, 1940, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad emphasised the heritage of common
nationality between Hindus and Muslims in India.*® This Congress also declared that
the involvement of India and exploitation of her resources in the war without the
consent of the Indians was a challenge to the Indian people which they would not

122

Indim Nationalism and Asia

tolerate and it decided to resort to civil disobedience/”

It was in such circumstances that the Viceroy made a statement on August 8,
1940. This August Offer made by the Viceroy affirmed by promise of Dominion
status. The August declaration further stated that with least possible delay the
British Government would set up a representative body to devise India's constitu¬
tion. The Viceroy also gave the assurance to the Muslim League that the British
Government would not contemplate transferring power to any system of government
in India, the authority of which was denied by large and powerful elements in
India’s national life.^^

This “August Offer” was rejected by the Congress, Nehru called it the final
breaking of such slender bonds which held Britain and India together and charac¬
terised it as the end of the hope that Britain and India would march together.'*®
The Congress Working Committee at its meeting on August 22, 1940 passed a
resolution to the effect that British Government was unwilling to part with any
power and that issue of the minorities had been made into an insuperable barrier
to India’s progress.'*® The All India Congress Committee decided in September, 1940
to launch individual civil disobedience in October, 1940. It was a protest against the
unwillingness on the part of the British Government to shed even a part of its
authority. Neary 3,000 Congressmen courted arrest during the years 1940-41.^* The
Muslim League also rejected the August Offer as the Viceroy was not prepared to
go so far as to give the League veto on the entry of Congress in the Executive
Council.^®

Meanwhile the war took a serious turn. France surrendered in June, 1940. Ger¬
many attacked Russia in June, 1941. Japan was rapidly expanding herself in Eastern
Asia. With the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941, the United
States entered into the war. In Asia, Japan consolidated her position and one by
one nations began to collapse. Singapore surrendered to the Japanese on February
15, 1942. Rangoon fell on March 7, 1942. All these events compelled the British
Government to realise the gravity of the situation and order to rally all the
forces of Indian life to guard India from the menace of Japanese invasion, Cripps
Mission was sent to India to discuss with Indian leaders the war situation and
Indian Constitutional problems.*® The Cripps Mission came to Delhi on March 22,
1942. After consulting the Viceroy, the Congress leaders and other parties in India,
Sir Stafford Cripps published the Draft Declaration on March 30, 1942. The decla¬
ration stated that after the war was over, steps would be taken to set up in India a
Self-Government by the creation of a new union which would constitute a Dominion,
with a right to adhere or not to adhere to the British Commonwealth. It provided
that upon the cessation of hostilities a new constitution would be framed and imple¬
mented with some reservations. The declaration recognised the right of any pro¬
vince of British India not to accept the new constitution. Furthermore, the
declaration stated that until the constitution of India was framed, the British
Government would bear the responsibility for the defence of India but the Govern¬
ment of India would take the task of organising to the full the military, moral and
material resources of India with the co operation of the people of India and the
British Government asked for the immediate and effective participation of the
leaders of the principal sections of the Indian people in the councils of their coun-

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement (1930-1945)

123

try, of the Commonwealth and of the United Nations.*’

The Cripps proposals were rejected by the Indian leaders. Gandhiji described
the pledge about future settlement of the Constitution as a post-dated cheque on a
bank that was obviously failing*® and told Cripps that “if this is your entire pro¬
posal to India, I would advise you to take the next plane home.”*** The Congress
Working Committee in April, 1942 expressed its unhappiness at the Cripps propo¬
sals and declared that the acceptance of the novel principle of non-accession for a
Province was a severe blow to the conception of Indian unity .'’‘’The Congress was
also opposed to the proposals on the ground that 90 millions of the people of the
Indian States were to have no voice in framing the constitution and the proposals
relating to the immediate present were also vague. The Congress demanded an
Indian Defence Member in the National Government, While these negotiations
were going on between the Congress and Cripps, Maulana Azud, the Congress
president, realised that new Government, which was to be formed during the war
period, would not be a National Government with full powers and that it would
not function like the British cabinet in its relation to the Viceroy because there was
to be no diminution in the powers of the Viceroy till the war was over and the new
constitution was framed. The Congress refused to join any government on this con¬
dition. Cripps, on the other hand, pointed out that this suggestion would be reject¬
ed by all minorities in India since it would subject all of them to a permanent and
autocratic majority in the cabinet.'” Thus, the Cripps proposals were rejected by
the Congress.’-

The Muslim League expressed its gratification that the possibility of Pakistan
was recognised by Cripps when he recognised the right of any province not to
remain in the Indian Union. Jinnah considered it a surrender to the concept of
partition.'’® The Muslim League passed a resolution expressing gratification that the
possibility of Pakistan was recognised by implication by providing for the establish¬
ment of two or more nations in India.®* However the League rejected the oflFer be¬
cause the Cripps proposals were not open to modification and that the talks had
been carried on with the Congress leaders over the heads of the Muslims, and other
parties had been utterly ignored.®’

The failure of the Cripps Mission to end the deadlock in India caused wides¬
pread frustration. Nehru wrote: “The reaction was strong and bitter”,®'* The All
India Congress Committee in May, 1942 declared that it would no longer consider
any scheme which retained any element of British authority or control in India. It
further stated that it was only on the basis of independence that India could deal
with Great Britain or any other nations.®’

The growing menace of Japan and the hesitant mood of the British Govern¬
ment to grant concessions to India convinced the Indians that freedom was their
only salvation. Gandhiji wrote on May 3, 1942: “The presence of the British in
India is an invitation to Japan to in'vade India. Their withdrawal removes the bait.
Assume, however, that it does not, free India will be better able to cope with the
invasion. Unadulterated non-co-operation will then have full sway.**® On July 14,
1942 the Congress Working Committee passed a resolution asking the British
Government to withdraw and to transfer authority in India to Provisional Govern¬
ment representative of all important sections of the people of India, which would

124

Indian Nationalism and Asia

later evolve a scheme by which a Constituent Assembly could be convened in order
to prepare a constitution for the Government of India, acceptable to all sections of
the people. Representatives of free India and representatives of Great Britain would
confer together for the adjustment of future relations and for the co-operation of
the two countries as allies in the common task of meeting aggression. The Congress
Working Committee declared that it had no desire to embarrass Britain or other
Allied powers in their Prosecution of war or to encourage Japanese invasion of
India. The Committee agreed to the stationing of the armed force of the Allied powers
in India in order to ward off the Japanese invasion. The Committee further warned
the British Government that if it did not terminate its rule in India the Congress
would be compelled to start a widespread struggle on non-violent lines under the
leadership of Mahatma Gandhi.^* Again, on August 8, 1942 the All India Congress
Committee passed the historic Quit India resolution. The resolution declared that
the immediate termination of the British rule in India was an urgent necessity, both
for the sake of India and for the success of the United Nations.®" The All India
Congress Committee also approved of a mass struggle on non-violent lines on the
widest possible scale under Gandhi’s leadership.®^

The Government of India arrested Gandhi and all others who mattered in the
Congress and thus provoked the whole nation. Large scale upheavels and disorders
took place and people rose in revolt against the British Raj. Income tax offices,
school and college buildings, post offices, railway and godowns became the common
objects of mischief of arson.®- The Government left no stone unturned to crush the
people’s movement.®® The massive support of the people to the August Revolution
of 1942 made it clear that India was no longer prepared to remain under the
Yoke of British imperialism.

The Muslim League did not join the Quit India movement launched in August,
1942. Jinnah complained that the Congress by adopting the Quit India resolution
had tried to coerce the British Government at a time while the latter was engaged
in fighting the war into handing over the reins of the Government of India to the
Congress and appealed to Muslims to keep completely aloof from the movement®®
The Muslim League Working Committee at its meeting in Bombay on August 29,
1942 viewed the action of the Congress in asking the British to Quit India as a
move to coerce the Government as well as the Muslims to submit to the demands
of the Congress which aimed at the establishment of the Hindu Raj ®®

The whole Congress leadership remained behind the bars till the end of the
Second World War. It was in May, 1944 that Gandhi was released from the Jail on
health grounds and on June 14, 1945, after Germany’s surrender, the Government
of India ordered the release of the members of the Working Committee of the
Congress. During this period when all those who mattered in the Congress were in
the Jails, the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League dominated the political
scene in India The Muslim League demanded a separate homeland for the Muslims
and the Hindu Mahasabha opposed this scheme. In his presidential address to the
annual meeting of the Hindu Mahasabha held in December, 1942, Savarkar said that
the ^‘Outrageous and treacherous'* demand for Pakistan would not be tolerated and
there must be no secession, no right of provincial self-determination. “Such claims’’
Savarkar added, “would be put down as treason by the United strength of the

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement {1930-1945)

125

Central Government just as a movement for Negrostan would be punished by the
American nation."^

But even during this period, some attempts were made for conciliation between
the Hindus and Muslims. Rajagopalachari in a pamphlet entitled “The Way Out”
published on November 30, 1943 renewed his plea for the acceptance of the scheme
of Pakistan by the Hindus. He pleaded for concessions to the principle of self deter¬
mination for minorities and states in a plan for a free and independent constitution
and for the accommodation of the Muslim League upto the farthest possible limit
and pointed out that non-co-operation in the cause of national freedom would be
at best a poor and ugly sanction for the Muslim League."’ At a lime when these
attempts were being made to placate the Muslims, the Muslim League at its Kara¬
chi session in December, 1943 adopted a new slogan, “Divide and Quit” as a coun¬
terpart of Gandhi’s “Quit India.” The League resolved to establish a Committee
of Action to organise Muslims all over the country to resist the imposition of a
unitary constitution and to prepare for the coming struggle for the achievement of
Pakistan.®**

Gandhi, who still believed in Hindu-Muslim unity, was eager for an under¬
standing between the Hindus and the Muslims. After his release from Jail on May f,
1944, Gandhi wrote to Jinnah requesting him to co-operate w'ith the Congress***
Gandhi wanted to work out Rajagopalachari's scheme which was rejected by Jinnah
because it offered “o shadow and a husk, a maimed, mutilated and motheaten
Pakistan". However he agreed to discuss the matter with Gandhi.’”

Gandhi met Jinnah on September 9, 1944 and talked to him on Rajagopala-
chari’s formula. Jinnah stressed that Pakistan should include Baluchi.stan, Sindh,
North West Frontier Province, Bengal, Assam and the Punjab subject to territorial
adjustments that might be agreed upon as indicated in the Lahore Resolution of
the Muslim League in 1940. Gandhi insisted that only the Muslims living in Balu¬
chistan, Sindh, North-West Frontier Province and parts of Punjab, Bengal and
Assam, who desired to live in separation from the rest of India should form the
new state. Gandhi wanted to concede Muslims demand for separation not because
they formed a separate nation but only because they wanted to separate themselves
from one family consisting of many members. Jinnah regarded the Indian Muslims
as constituting a separate nation. Gandhi thought that the separate Muslim state
should be formed after India was free, but Jinnah asked for an immediate and
complete settlement. Gandhi suggested that there should be a treaty of separation
to provide for the efficient and satisfactory administration of foreign affairs, defence
communications, customs, commerce and a like matters, of common interests ; but
Jinnah was clear that all these matters could not be delegated to any common cent¬
ral authority or Government. The suggestion of Gandhi created a suspicion in
Jinnah’s mind that Gandhi was still thinking in terms of some sort ot a federal or
confederal arrangement and not in terms of two sovereign, separate and independent
states’’ Jinnah rejected Gandhi’s proposals and the Gandhi-Jinnah talks failed to
solve the constitutional and political deadlock in India. In March, 1945 Jinnah
declared, “Pakistan is our irrevocable and unalterable national demand...We shall
never accept any constitution on the basis of a united India.Gandhi-Jmnah talks
were viewed with alarm and grave concern by the Hindu Mahasabha. Savarkar

126

Indian Nationalism and Asia

made a scathing remark on Gandhi’s offer to negotiate with Jinnah on the basis of
partitioning India and emphatically stated that the Indian provinces “were not the
private properties of Gandhi and Rajaji so that they could make a gift of them to
anyone they liked.’”“ Nevertheless, after the failure of Gandhi*Jinnah talks Tej
Bahadur Sapru and Bhulabhai Desai made sincere attempts to bring about an
agreement between the various political parties in India. The Muslim League rejected
the proposals of Tej Bahadur Sapru because they recommended joint electorate
but not Pakistan. Sapru’s proposals were opposed by the non-Congress Hindus
because they recommended parity between the Muslims and Hindus other than the
scheduled castes.*^

While the Congress and the Muslim League were standing poles apart on the
issue of constitutional settlement and the war was going on without any hope of early
termination, Lord Wavell, the Viceroy, visited London in March, 1945 and discussed
Indian problems with the British Government. The British Government’s proposals
were published on June 14, 1945. The British Government proposed that the
Central Executive should be constituted to include leaders of Indian political
parties in such a way that a balanced representation was given to the main commu¬
nities, including an equal proportion of Muslims and caste Hindus. It was proposed
that external affairs should be placed in the hands of an Indian member of the
Viceroy’s Executive Council so far as British India was concerned and representative
should be appointed to represent India abroad. No change in the relations of the
Crown with the Indian states through the Viceroy as Crown representative was
contemplated. All members of the Executive Council, except Viceroy and the
Coramander-in-Chief, were to be Indians. In order to place these proposals before
the Indian leaders and to find out the possibilities of the formation of a reconsti¬
tuted Executive Council, the Viceroy called a conference at Simla on June 25, 1945,
but no solution could be found as Jinnah refused to co-operate with the Viceroy’s
proposals if there was any non-League Muslim in the Viceroy’s Executive Council.’®
Announcing the failure of the Simla Conference on July 14, 1945 Lord Wavell
wrote: “Jinnah was so decided that 1 felt that it would be useless to continue the
discussion’’.’" Thus, till the end of the Second World War (Japan surrendered on
August 15, 1945 no constitutional solution to Indian problems evolved. During 1930
and 1945 the nationalist movement in India consolidated itself but it was plagued
by the Hindu-Muslim, Congress-League rivalry and antagonism. In 1930, the nation
under the leadership of the Congress demanded complete independence and in 1945
it seemed that it could be achieved and independence seemed to be in sight. Azad
had rightly observed: “the Simla Conference marks a breakwater in Indian political
history’’.” The failure of the conference on account of Jinnah’s persistent demands
that non-League Muslims should not be included in the Viceroy’s Executive Coun¬
cil indicated that the independence of India could be attained not only by the
attempts of the congress. Indian struggle for freedom became tripartite struggle—
an issue to be settled by the concerted efforts of the Congress, Muslim League and
the British Government. By 1945, it seemed that India would soon get independence
but it was not certain that India would remain a united nation.

The period from 1930 to 1945 marked the consolidation of the Indian National
Movement and its attempts for close co-operation with the nations of Asia. During

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement {1930-194S)

111

this period Indian leaders formulated a well-knit Asian policy and evinced keen
interest in the affairs of the Asian Countries.

Indian and Ceylon: Indian leaders desired to live in friendly bonds with the
people of Ceylon. The only stumbling block in the way of good neighbourly
relationship between the two countries was the presence of a large number of
Indians in Ceylon which oft and often caused some sort of misunderstanding
between the two peoples of Asia. Imbued with a sense of fellow-feeling with Ceylon
Indian leaders made earnest attempts to remove this misunderstanding The Indian
Social Reformer emphasised the need of friendly relations between India and
Ceylon and expressed the hope that the day was not far distant when Ceylon would
be politically, as she was racially and culturally, an integral part of India.At a
time when the ill-feeling between the two neighbours was increasing on account of
the Indian settlers in Ceylon, Subhas Chandra Bose sent his greetings to Lanka
(Ceylon) Sama Samaj Party through Bikshu Sankara who visited Calcutta on the
occasion of the meeting of the Ail India Congress Committee. In his message
Subhas Bose emphatically stated; ‘‘Common aims and principles bind the freedom
movement in our two countries. Besides, the people of Ceylon and of India can
look back to a common culture and heritage and both our nations look forward to
a bright and glorious future’*.'’’-' He further pointed out that one of the problems,
which was causing anxiety to responsible people in Ceylon was the question of
Indo-Sinhalese relations. This problem, he hoped, could be satisfactorily solved
only through mutual goodwill, without the interference of the third party. He also
appealed to the Indians living in Ceylon to look upon themselves as not as foreig¬
ners, but as children of the Soil and to serve the interests of the Sinhalese. If
Indians would do so, Subhas Bose declared, they would certainly win the confi¬
dence, trust and goodwill of their Sinhalese brethren. He also urged upon the
people of Ceylon to treat Indians not as undesirable aliens, but as people coming
from the land of Buddha.^"

The All India Congress Committee at its meeting in June, 193‘), discussed the
issue of Indo-Sinhalese relation and viewed with concern the measures proposed by
the Ceylon Government with reference to the Indian employees and hoped that
it would be possible to find a way to avoid the most undesirable conflict which
would weaken the bond of fellowship between India and Ceylon. The Committee
felt alarm at the misunderstanding between the two countries which were separated
only by a strip of water and which had a common culture and which had been inti¬
mately connected since time immemorial. The Committee expressed desires to
explore every possible means of avoiding a conflict and therefore appointed Jawahar
Lai Nehru to go to Ceylon and confer with the authorities and representative asso¬
ciations and individuals and do all that might be possible to effect a just and
honourable settlement."^ The Committee’s sincere desires to settle amicably the
disputes between India and Ceylon were highly appreciated in India. Comment¬
ing upon the decision of the All India Congress Committee to send Jawahar Lai
Nehru to Ceylon, Gandhi wrote that the Congress Committee had done well in
choosing its best man to proceed to Ceylon “as the nation’s ambassador of peace.
It is, at least, it should be impossible for India and Oylon to quarrel’*."" He
further stated that Indians and Ceylonese were the nearest neighbours and the

128

Indian Nationalism and Asia

inheritors of a common culture. Explaining the cultural and geographical proximity
between the two nations Gandhi remarked, “But even as blood brothers sometimes
differ so do next door neighbours. And like brothers, they usually adjust their
differences and are the more closely knit together after the clearance. So may it be
between Ceylon and India through the efforts of Jawaharlal Nehru.”*®

Nehru visited Ceylon in July, 1939 and was accorded warm welcome and hearty
reception wherever he went in Ceylon. During his stay in Ceylon Nehru stressed
the urgency of the freedom of Cey’on and assured the Ceylonese that no Indian
could desire to exploit or to do injury to Ceylonese people. He also expressed the
hope that no Ceylonese could also wish ill to Indians or to India.*^ On July 18,
1939 Nehru questioned by Pressmen in Colombo, whether he would succeed in his
mission to Ceylon, said: “Ceylon is far too small, you know, to stand alone. She
must for the sake of her trade have contacts with other countries and with what
country should she have close contacts than with India.”*® Speaking on July 19,1939
at Colombo Nehru made an appeal for friendship between India and Ceylon. On
July 20,1939 Nehru declared that whatever might be the result of his mission, he
was glad and hopeful that his visit might help to remove the existing barriers of ill-
feeling and suspicion and restore amity and understanding between Indians and
Ceylonese.**

Nehru’s visit to Ceylon paved the way for larger co-operation, mutual good¬
will and understanding between the two countries. Commenting upon the impact
of Nehru’s visit to Ceylon, Lanka, Sundaram wrote that Nehru during his visit to
Ceylon conquered the hearts of the five millions people of Ceylon and no Roman
Emperor could have wished for a more triumphal tour of his state than what Nehru
experienced during his eight days in Ceylon.*’ Though Nehru frankly admitted that
the outstanding disputes between Indians living in Ceylon and the Ceylon Govern¬
ment had not been solved by his visit but he was hopeful that the visit had
strengthened the relations between India and Ceylon. In an interview to the
pressmen on July 25, 1939, Nehru stated that his visit had done good in improving
the relations between India and Ceylon**, and had created an atmosphere of friend¬
lines between the peoples of the two countries.*" Indeed, Nehru’s visit paved the
way for closer relations between India and Ceylon and Nehru returned to India
convinced that in any future order Ceylon and India must hang together.®"

The Working Committee of the Indian National Congress in August, 1939
considered the situation in Ceylon as placed before the Committee by JawiAar Lai
Nehru after his visit to the Island and expressed its regret that the Ceylon govern¬
ment had not thought it fit to make any major change in the measure they had
proposed in order to remove a large number of Indians from their employment
though the Government had given assurances that all cases of hardship w^ld be
carefully considered by it. The Committee declared that the action of the Ceylon
Government in respect of these measures was not in confirmity with justice or
international practice. The Working Committee assured the people of Ceylon of
every sympathy with their national awakening and of every desire to co-operate in
the solutions of economic and other problems which plagued Ceylon and India
alike The Committee desired that Indians living in alien lands must be treated
honourably and with justice and it did not want Indians to go anywhere as un-

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement {1930-1945)

129

warranted outsiders who exploited the people of the country. The Committee recog¬
nised the right of the people of Ceylon to be given preference in state service and
India was fully prepared to co-operate in this task. The Committee expressed its
readiness to co-operate with Ceylon Government in all steps to adjust relationship
so as to give every opportunity to the people of Ceylon to advance and find self-
fulfilment. It further declared not to do anything which might put a strain on the
cultural, historical and economic bonds which united India and Ceylon.*’*

Restrictive measures adopted by the Ceylon State Council produced an adverse
reaction in India and the Indian leaders put pressure on the Government of India
to take up vigorously the question of Indians in Ceylon which resulted in the
banning in 1939 of all Indian emigration to Ceylon by the Government of India.‘'“
But this big issue confronting both India and Ceylon did not succeed in killing the
friendly feelings between the peoples of the two countries. Some of the Ceylonese
leaders desired to settle the issue of Indian settlers in a just manner and gave their
support to Indian initiatives for Asian solidarity. Ceylon sent its delegates to the
All Asia Women Conference held at Lahore in January, 1931 on the initiative of
All India Women Conference and supported the Indian proposal to develop regular
cultural contacts between the countries of Asia '*** Mr. Colvin’d Silva, president
of the Ceylon Socialist Party and D C. Gunawardhena and N.M. Perara, socialist
members of Ceylon State Council, came to India to attend the All India Socialists’
Conference held at Faizpur. In a statement, the Ceylon leaders asked the people of
India to reject the wrong notion that there was widespread anti-Indian feeling in
Ceylon and assured the people of India the continued good-will of their
countrymen.*’*

Fighting, as they were, for their independence against imperialism; the Indian
Leaders expressed sympathy with the nationalist aspirations of the people of
Ceylon. During the Second World War the Ceylonese gave full support to the war
efforts of the Allied Powers as a result of which the British Government declared
in 1943 that after the termination of the war it would grant Ceylon a full respon¬
sible Government under the Crown in all matters of internal civil administration.
The British Government further declared that it would control the external rela¬
tions and defence of Ceylon.” ' This offer was accepted by the Board of Ministers
in Ceylon.”® Indian public opinion, which felt a genuine interest in the affairs of
Ceylon, advised the Ceylonese not to be too much optimistic about the British
declaration which reserved foreign relations and defence of the country in the
British hands. The Modern Review cautioned the Ceylonese about the inherent
flaws in the declaration and wrote that the logical outcome of the policy, if adopt¬
ed, conld not but be the continued use of the colonies and other possessions of
Britain as fields for exploitation and aggrandizement by the British people and all
that this implied. It urged the Board of Ministers in Ceylon to profit by the bitter
and sad experience of India in sphere.s of almost identical reservations, safeguards
and conditions. In Ceylon it was essential that they should not only have a fresh
election but there should also be a demand for a Constituent Assembly on the
basis of adult franchise. Expressing sincere love for Ceylonese independence the
Modern Review concluded : “In view of the numerous ties, such as geographical,
racial, social, cultural, economic, etc., between India and Ceylon, it can not be

130

Indian Nationalism and Asla-

dcnied that the progress of the two countries are bound up each with the other.
It is of the utmost importance, therefore, that leaders of public opinion in the two
countries should remain equally wide-awake and vigilant.*’^

India’s urge for friendship with Ceylon and her desire to co-operate with
Ceylon were expressed in the various schemes which the Indian nationalists drew
up for the formation of an Asiatic Federation in which Ceylon was included as a
constituent unit. Writing in J940, Jawahar Lal Nehru advocated the formation of
a federation of China, Burma, India, Afghanistan, Persia along with Ceylon.®®
Ceylonese leaders also appreciated such schemes envisaging close alliance between
Nationalist India and Ceylon. Even during the stormy days of the Second World
War Sanghamugha Das, a Ceylonese Trade Union leader, came to India to attend
the 21st Session of the All India Trade Union Congress held at Madras in January,
1945. The Ceylonese delegate reiterated the close ties that held the people of India
and Ceylon together. The people of Ceylon, Das added, were being kept in bond¬
age by the same imperialist power which kept the Indians in bondage. Hence, the
Ceylonese delegate assured the Indians that the Ceylonese people, would give their
whole-hearted support to the cause of Indian Independence.*®

Thus, despite the outstanding desputes arising out of the presence of a large
number of Indians in Ceylon, the people of both the countries desired to live in
friendly relations during the year 1930-45.

India and Nepal : Indians eagerly watched the developments in Nepal and
elite opinion in Nepal developed a considerable respect for Indian Nationalist
Movement. Democratic movement in Nepal got inspiration from India and the
latter lent its support to this movement for democratic reforms in Nepal. “The
Rana rule of Nepal and the British Rule of India formed, as it were”. G.P. Bhatta-
charjee wrote, “one inseparable bloc against which the democratic movement of
Nepal and the nationalist movement of India were directed.’’^®" Both the Indian
Nationalists and the Nepalese reformers realised that the success of the one depend¬
ed on the success of the other and hence they made elforts to co-ordinate their
movements.

Elite opinion in Nepal developed a considerable respect for Indian nationalist
movement. They were influenced by the various schemes of social and economic
reforms introduced by Gandhi in India. In 1930, a group of Nepalese Youths
under the influence of Gundhian thought, formed an association to make the people
know about the evils of liquor, meat-eating, caste-system. But it was not only
Gandhism which had an appeal to the Nepalese Youngmen. Revolutionary activi¬
ties and the heroic exploits of Bhagat Singh and others aroused the Nepalese Youths
from stupor Consequently in 1931, under the able leadership of Khanda Man Singh,
Khadga Man Singh and others, the Youths of Nepal organised a secret society
called Prachanda Gorakha, on the lines of the revolutionary parties in India, in
order to bring the Rana tyranny to an early end and to introduce democratic
principles in the Government of the country. Another extremist organisation known
as the Praja Parishad, which also aimed at the termination of the Rana regime, was
established in 1935 in Kathmandu and the organisers worked under the inspiration
derived from the Civil Disobedience Movement and the secret revolutionary activi¬
ties in India in the early thirties of the 20th century.

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement {1930~194S)

131

It would seem curious ‘to note that whereas the agitators against the Rana rule
in Nepal drew inspiration from Indian struggle for freedom, the Nepal Govern¬
ment enjoyed the confidence and sympathy of the Hindus organised under the
banner of the All India Hindu Mahasabha. The 14th session of the All India
Hindu Mahasabha held in September, 1932 at Delhi under the presidentship of
N.C. Kelkar, noted with pleasure the accession to the post of Prime Ministership of
Sbamser Jung Bahadur Rana who attached much value to the solidarity of Hindus
of Hindustan including Nepal and outside it and to the protection of Hindu cul-
tuie, race and religion. Paying tributes to his qualities the Mahasabha prayed for
the long life of the Prime Minister.V.D. Savarkar, the president of the 19th
session of the All India Hindu Mahasabha held at Ahmedabad in 1937 sent forth
on behalf of all Hindus their loyal and loving greetings to the king of Nepal, the
Prime Minister of Nepal and all co-religionists and countrymen there, who had,
even in the darkest hour of history, been successful in holding out as Hindu power
and in keeping a flag of Hindu Independence flying on the summits of the Hima¬
layas. The Kingdom of Nepal, the resolution of the Hindu Mahasabha recorded,
was the only Hindu Kingdom in the world whose independence was recognised by
England, France. Italy and other great powers.^®* The attitude of the Hindu
Mahasabha towards Nepal was based on narrow ground of religious and cultural
similarity between India and Nepal but behind it also worked the motive to have
friendly relations with a next door neighbour.

As the years rolled by and as the democratic movement in Nepal gathered
momentum, the politically conscious Nepalese realised that the Rana Regime in
Nepal could not be terminated as long as the British Rule would last in India. The
British Government’s full support to the Ranas in suppressing the agitations for
democratic reforms in Nepal convinced the Nepalese that their movement for
democratic reforms was closely interwined with the Indian struggle for national
independence.*®^ This realisation of the common interest instigated the politically
conscious Nepalese to take an active part in the Quit India Movement of 1942 and
some of the outstanding leaders of the democratic movement of Nepal, such as
B.P. Koirala, K.P. Upadhyaya, D.R. Regmi, were put in to Jail by the British
Government. Mutual co-operation and sympathy developed to such an extent that
when Jayaprakash Narayan, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia and few other socialist
leaders, who had fled to Nepal to escape arrest for their revolutionary activities
during the Quit India Movement, were interned by the Rana Government in the
Hanuman Nagar Jail, the local Nepalese people attacked the Jail and freed the
Indian revolutionaries. The Rana Government became perturbed at this incident,
arrested a number of persons and sent twentytwo persons to Kathmandu for
trial.*"® Though this incident was small but it was pregnant with far reaching
consequences and was a break through in Indo-Nepal relations.

The Government of Nepal, too, sometimes respected the sentiments of the
Hindus of India. It was this respect for the Hindus in India that in 1940, when the
Government of Nepal lent the Government of India eight thousand Gurkha troops,
the former attached two conditions to the utilisation of Gurkha troops lent by the
Government of Nepal. The conditions were that the Gurkha troops were not
to be sent abroad outside India and within India they were not to be employed

132

Indian NationalUm and Asia

against the Hindus. The second condition laid down by the Government of Nepal
revealed the respect it had for sentiments of Hindus in India

India and Afghanistan'. In 1920’s Nationalist India remained associated with
the nationalist aspirations of the Afghan people and their liberal king, Amanullah,
and expressed its concern over the troubles created in Afghanistan against the
liberal reforms of King Amanullah. When the Afghan affairs v»ere settled and Nadir
Khan became the ruler of the country, Indian leaders exprest»ed their goodwishes
for Afghanistan’s prosperity and asked the Afghan king not to undo the reforms
introduced by king Amanullah,”'^ Maulana Shaukat Ali, when interviewed by the
Associated Press on his return from Kabul which he had visited as the guest of
king Nadir Shah, declared: “In another five or ten years Afghanistan will be a
country of which not only the Afghans but the Muslims of Asia will be proud,’’*"”
The people in India viewed with satisfaction the establishment of a National Afghan
Univeisity by king Nadir Shah, Appreciating the Afghan king for the establishment
of the university, The Modern Review asked the Indian patriots to learn lessons
from Afghan educational progress.*"”

Indian leaders reposed great faith in Afghani^tan and stressed the need of
developing close contacts with Afghan people. In 1930’s when the Congress leaders
were seriously considering the problem of India’s defence they seemed to be confi¬
dent that trouble would not conte from the side of Afghanistan. Jawaharlal Nehru
told the Indian people that Afganistan had been cloudy associated with India in the
past and urged the need to revive those links which connected India and Afghan¬
istan.'The Working Committee of the Indian National Congress in July, 1938
passed resolution appreciating the action of the Afghan Government in abo¬
lishing the monopolistic arrangements made by them for controlling the
export trade in dry fruits which were detrimental to the interests of Indian mer¬
chants in Afghanistan and India. The Committee welcomed the restoration of status
quo which, the Committee hoped, would help to improve friendly feelings between
the people of India and Afghanistan.'" In fact, d uring 1 930 and 1945 Nationalist
India and Afghani.stan xemained sympa thetic to e ach other.

India and South East Asia'. Leaders of Nationalist India eagerly watched the
developments in South-East Asia. Indian Nationalists were glad to learn in April,
1932 that the American House of Representatives had passed a bill providing for
independence of the Philippines within eight years. The Modern Review appreciated
this move of the American Government."” Expre.ssing his pleasure at the new move
of America, Gandhi said that though the Filipinos would not get complete indepen¬
dence in the immediate future, they were getting the “substance of indepen¬
dence.’’""

Jawaharlal Nehru, who had a genuine desire to develop good friendly relations
with Asian countries, visited Malaya in 1937 where he was enthusiastically received
by the people."* During his stay there, Nehru advised the Indians living in Malaya
to make common cause with the Malayans Nehru’s visit to the colonies of Penang,
Malacca, Singapore the federated and unfederated Malaya states strengthened the
bonds of friendship between India and these lands and went a long way in bringing
together the people of India and Malaya in a common struggle against
imperialism.**^

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement ( 1930-1945)

133

When the dark clouds of the Second World War over-shadowed the destiny
of the World and South-East Asian countries became the theatre of imperialists’
struggle, the Working Committee of the Indian National Congress held in
December, 1941 expressed its deep sympathy with the people of Malaya, Burma and
East Indies in the trials and hardships they were facing as a result of the conflict
between ambitious and imperialist nations of the world.'"’ Despite its pre-occupa¬
tions with its own problems the Indian National Congress did not forget the inte¬
rests of the South-East Asian Countries even in the darkest hours. The All India
Congress Committee held in August, 1942 also championed the cause of the free¬
dom of all South-East Asian countries. The Committee declared, “The freedom of
India must be the symbol of and prelude to the freedom of all other Asiatic nations
under foreign dominations. Burma. Malaya, Indochina, Dutch Indies, Iran and
Iraq must also attain their complete freedom. It must be clearly understood that
such of these countries as are under Japanese control now must not subsequently
be placed under the rule or control of any other colonial powt^r. '' One day betore
his arrest in Bombay in August, 1942, .lawaharlal Nehru told Shiva Rao, a corres¬
pondent of The Hindu that India would regard it as dishonourable betrayal of the
Allied cause to negotiate a separate peace with Japan or any of the Axis power.
The Congress desired to see the independence not only of India, but also of Burma,
Malaya and the rest of Asia then under the Japanese control,*"’

Sympathy for South-East Asian countries was expressed by Indian nationalists
in international conferences. Mrs. Vijiiy Lukshmi Pandit, who was a delegate to the

International Conference of the Institme of Pacific Relations, stressed the need for
the freedom of Burma, Indochina and Eust-lndies and emphatically stated that the
colonies were out of place in the future world order.*’■' On May 4, 1945, at San
Francisco, Mrs. Pandit submitled a inemoraf dum to tlie San Prancisco Conference
calling for an immediate declaration of India’s freedom but she also spoke for
those countries which like India were under the heels of alien domination. I
speak,” she declared, “in particular for Burma, Malaya, Indochina and Dutch
East Indies, all bound to my own country by the closest ties of hi.st<>rical and cul¬
tural kinship and which cherish aspirations to national freedom like our own.
Liberation from Japan should mean for them, liberation from all alien imperialism
so far as this conference is concerned.’’^”" She further warned the imperialist powers
that there would be no real peace on this earth so long as the enslaved nations of ,
Asia were denied justice.^^^ Jawaharlal Nehru was very aaxiou.s about the fate of
the countries belonging to Soulh-East Asian region. In an interview to Paul Fang,
special correspondent of the Central News Agency, China, he declared that the
future of Asia would obviously be a knotty problem. The whole of South-East Asia
or the pans thereof occupied by Japan would not settle down till the quest.oii of
colonial determination was settled once and for all. and their natives were free^ -
The Hindustan Standard shared the sentiments of the Indian people when it
warned the imperialist powers not to attempt to restore their colonial system m
South-East Asia The paper wrote that this Bourbon Restoration was bound to rneet
with stern opposition. The paper emphatically staled that for Malaya, Indochina
and East-Indies, there could be only one good, the creation of independent nations
and warned the Western imperialists that any post war settlement that left unsolved

134

Indian Nationalism and Asia

the basic question of freedom in the East was sure to give rise to widespread dis¬
content that might blow up the entire structure of the World Security at any
moment. India had a right to know, the paper added, what was going to happen in
Burma, Malaya, Borneo and Siam because the happenings in these lands would also
affect India’s destiny.^'^®

India and Burma : Of all the South-East Asian countries Burma aroused much
sympathy of the Indian people who looked upon the Burmans as their close part*
ners in the game of the liberation movement of their respective countries. From
very inception the Indian National Movement had been sympathetic to the nation¬
alist aspirations of Burma. But the presence of Indians in Burma sometimes caused a
scratch on the surface of Indo-Burmese friendship. Despite this big obstacle in the
way of friendly and good neighbourly relations between India and Burma, the
Indian nationalists remained sympathetic to Burma in her struggle for freedom and
made constant efforts to settle amicably the disputes arising out of the presence of
a large number of Indian settlers in Burma. Burma also desired to be at friendly
relations with Nationalist India.

It was in the wake of the political consciousness in Burma that a demand for
separation of Burma from India began to register itself in Burmese politics because
the curious thing about nationalism in Burma was anti-foreignism directed against
the British but also directed against the immigrants from India.^'-* The number of
Indian immigrants, their powerful economic position, their transitory character and
the appearance of exploitation caused bitterness against the Indians in the hearts of
the Burmans who feared that their country might one day become a vassal state of
an Indian commonwealth ruled by Indians.^®® It was in this background that the
demand for separation raised its head. There started a strong demand for separa¬
tion of Burma from India in 1930’s. However, Burmese opinion was divided over
the question of separation. There were three schools of opinion in Burma. Some
desired that Burma should not be separated from India and should remain in
Indian Federation. Rev. Maung Maungji, Rev. U. Ottama and U. So. Thein,
belonged to this school which opposed the separation and favoured the close con¬
tact with India. A joint statement issued by Ba Naw’s party, U. Chit Hlaing's
Party, the G.C.B.A., the Minglun Sayadaw’s Sangha Council and other anti-separa¬
tion parties protested against the separation of Burma from India.Speaking at
Karachi session of the Indian National Congress in 1931 Maung Maungji favoured
Burma's close association with India on both economic and political grounds and
opposed separation of Burma from India.^” U. Kyaw Myint in his speech in the
Indian Legislative Assembly on March 16, 1931, declared that the vast majority of
the Burmese people had bwn and would continue to be against separation.^-® An¬
other section of Burmese population desired separation but also an assurance that
Burma's Status thereafter would not, on the whole, be lower than that of India
under the new constitution and in case the constitution offered her should be
unacceptable she desired the door into the Federation to be left open to her. U, Ba
Pe, a Burmese delegate at the Indian Round Table Conference, declared on Jan¬
uary 16, 1931 that the desire for the separation of Burma from India was a univer¬
sal desire in Burma but while some wanted separation then and Dominion Status
later, others opposed immediate separation because they did not trust the British

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement (1930-1945) 135

people to give them Dominion Status thereafter.^^^ There was a third current of
opinion in Burma which held that should the constitution offered to separated
Burma be unsatisfactory, the recourse should be had to agitation but not to entry
into the federation. U. So Nyun, M.L.C. urged the Burmans that if the constitution
given to a separated Burma were not acceptable then Burraan should wreck it but
that the idea of entering the proposed federation should be abandoned

Despite the divergent Burmese views on separation issue, the Simon Commi¬
ssion in 1928 recommended separation of Burma from India.^^’ The Burma Round
Table Conference (November, 1931-January, 1932) agreed upon the main lines of a
constitution for Burma separated from India.An election was held in November,
1932 to know the public opinion on the issue of separation. The anti-separationists
won complete victory at the general election. But even these anti-separationists
desired Burma to remain in Indian Federation with a right to secede from it. Bur¬
mese opinion swung back in favour of separation. In 1935 when the British India
Act was passed, Burma was treated separately. Two years later Burma received a
new constitution and was separated from India after a long association.

So far the question of separation of Burma from India was concerned Indian
opinion on the subject was uniform and clear ; it was that the question was one for
decision by the people of Burma alone but that adequate opportunity should be
given them to express their views. During his visit to Burma in 1929, Gandhi, while
stressing the need of friendly relations between India and Burma, advised the Indian
settlers in Burma to take no sides in the controversy over separation and to leave
the decision to Burmans alone. Burma, Gandhi declared, should have full self-
determination in the matter.^’®

The Indian National Congress, the main plank of the nationalist movement in
India, also adopted some sort of neutral attitude in this regard. At its forty-fifth
session at Karachi in 1931, the Congress recognised the right of the people of
Burma to claim separation from India and to establish an independent Burman
state or to remain an autonomous partner in free India with a right of separation at
any lime they might desirjs to exercise it. The Congress however, condemned the
endeavour of the British Government to force separation of Burma without giving
opportunity to the Burmese people to express their views and against the declared
wishes of their national political organisations. The Congress considered this ende¬
avour as deliberately engineered and viewed it with concern that it aimed at the
perpetuation of British imperialism in Burma and to make Burma along with Singa¬
pore the stronghold of British imperialism in Eastern Asia. The Congress further
strongly opposed any British policy which would result in Burma being kept as a
British dependency and in the exploitation of Burma’s resources for British imperia¬
list interests for it would be a menace to free India as well as to the other nations of
the East. The Congress demanded that extra-ordinary powers given to the Govern¬
ment of Burma be withdrawn and the stricture passed on the Burmese national orga¬
nisations that they were illegal, should immediately be removed so that normal con¬
ditions might be restored and future of Burma might be discussed by her people
without hindrance in a peaceful atmosphere and the will of the Burmese people
might prcvail.^®^ Thus, even the Indian National Congress also recognised the right
of the Burmans to separate from India but the British support to the separation

136

Indian Nationalism and Asia

move caused suspicion in the nationalist circle in India that the British v^anted to
exploit Burma after separating her from India.

Similar sentiments were expressed by other Indian leaders from different plat¬
forms. At the Indian Round Table Conference held in London in January, 1931,
Indian delegates accepted the right of the Burmans to separate from India. Speak¬
ing at the Conference on January 16, 1931 Shiva Rao frankly declared : “At the out¬
set I want to make it absolutely clear that in this vital matter which concerns the
future of Burma, it is the wishes of the majority of the people of Burma alone which
should be the guiding factor in arriving at a decision. Let Burma be sqiarated from
India if her people really want it. But first let us make sure of it by a local inquiry
that they do.’’’“^ Other Indian delegates, Dr. Moonje, Jayakar and M.A. Jinnah
supported this point of view.Mody, another Indian delegate, went to the length
of saying that India too had an interest in the form of the future constitution of
Burma, and that Burma and India also should have more than a vague assurance
that the prospects of Constitutional advance towards responsible government would
not be prejudiced by separation. “I do not suggest,” he further stated, “that Indian
intere.sts should dominate the Burman point of view but India should certainly know
what sort of constitution is to be given.Sir C.P. Rumaswami Aiycr declared
that the que.stion of separation should not be finally settled till the full implications
of separation were understood by Burmans and their wishes then ascertained.^®”

Even in the Indian Legislative Assembly on March 16, 1931, the Indian
members reiterated the views of the Indian delegates at the Round Table Confere¬
nce. B. Das declared, “If the people of Burma want separation let them have it by
all means, but before that they must be promised Dominion Status and equal free¬
dom as India will get.'®® Diwan Bahadur T, Rangachariar also agreed that it should
be left to the Burmese to decide what they wanted but urged as most essential that
they should have the opportunity to say what they wanted to say. He further
stated, “They might like to remain in India in the Federation as other provinces
would like to be; so there are various reasons why the real Burmese opinion should
be taken in the matter and more essential than that is that, there should be free and
full opportunity given to the Burmese people to give expression to their opinion.”'*-
Sir Abdur Rahim maintained that if the Burmans desired separation from India
“We the Indians do not stand in their w*.iy, but there is absolute necessity for Bur¬
mese opinion being properly consulted before any definite decision is arrived at.”“‘
.Toshi expressed the same view and said : “if Burma is to be separated, that separa¬
tion in my judgment should take place in accordance with the wishes of the
Burmese people. I am anxious that if Burma is to be separated at all Burma must
be made a dominion with a separate seat in the League of Nations.’'**® Ramaswami
Mudaliar put forward that Burma, though she might not want to join the Federa¬
tion on the same footing as the other provinces of British India, might nevertheless
care to join on the same basis as an Indian state.*'*® Like the Indian delegates at the
Round Tabic Conference and the Indian members in the Central Legislative Asse¬
mbly, Vallabhbhai Patel, an important Congress leader of India, stressed that be¬
fore separation the wishes of the Burmese people must be ascertained. Speaking
from the Presidential Chair of the Indian National Congress held at Karachi in
1931, Patel said ; “As regards Burma, press censorship has rendered it impossible

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement (1930-1945)

137

for us to know the true situation there. Whether Burma should be separated from
India or should be part of the free India is for the Burmese alone to decide. But it
is our concern, indeed, it is the world’s concern, to see that all sides are heard. The
proposition that there should be a referendum of Burmese opinion seems to me to
be eminently reasonable.”***

In the course of discussion on a resolution moved by Burmese leader Maung
Maungji, Aney took exception to the grant to Burma of the right to separate at will
and inquired whether a similar right had been extended to other provinces in India.
Jawaharlal Nehru explained that the case of Burma stood on a quite different
level and should be treated as such. Both India and Burma, he said, were anxious
to maintain very close relationship and hence Indians could not insist upon Burma
remaining in the Indian Federation against her wishes. He further declared that the
right of self-determination could not be enjoyed by other provinces in India.**^

The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Indihstry also passed a
similar resolution on April 8, 1931. The Federation unanimously declared that the
question of the Constitutional evolution of Burma should be left to the decision of
the people of Burma, “There are ample indications to show,” the resolution stated,
“that responsible Burmese opinion is dissatisfied with the decision of the Round
Table Conference and the Secretary of State’s statement in the House of Commons
on January 20, last (1931) to pursue separation without Dominion Status. The
Federation considers that the proposed Federation of Indian stales and provinces
has created a new position under which Burma can join the federation with great
advantage to herself. The Federation therefore urges that full facilities should be
provided for the people of Burma to express their free opinion on this matter, a
step rendered more diliicult owing to the repressive law.s now in ft>rce.”"‘*

Considerable section of the Press in India also supported the stand taken by
Indian leaders on the issue of separation of Burma from India. The Leader dated
March 19, 1931, appreciated the resolution moved by Kyaw Myint, a Burmese
member of the Indian Central Legislative Assembly, in the Legislative Assembly
regarding the .separation of Burma because it approved the principle of self-deter¬
mination for Burmans, expressed concern at the manner in which separation was
being rushed through and urged the necessity of ascertaining the real desire of
Burmans in the matter by means of a referendum.*'''' The Tribune in its issue of
March 19, 1931, declared that the question of separation was a question for the
Burmans to decide.’'■'* The Indian Daily Mail maintained : “We have always held
the view that it is for the Burmans to decide whether they should remain within the
Indian F.mpire or outside it. It is certainly a reasonable suggestion that the oppor¬
tunity should be given to the province of Burma to choose between going out of
the federation or remaining within it.”*"* The Bombay Chronicle pointed out that
the only right course in this matter was first to complete a scheme for all India
federation and then let the people of Burma choose between the autonomous mem¬
bership of a free federation and separation on the basis of Dominion Status.*''**
Justice reiterated the stand taken by the Indian delegates at the Round Table Con¬
ference and in the Legislative Assembly that separation was a matter to be decided
by the Burmese people themselves and that if they stood for separation from India
nothing should .be permitted to stand in the way of separation.'^'

138

Indian Nationalism and Asia

When separation of Burma from India became an established fact in 1937 the
fund of goodwill for Burma in India had not exhausted. Still the Indians desired to
live at friendly relations with Burma. Expressing this general desire of the Indians
The Leader wrote ; “Now that Burma has been separated and the new constitution
has come into force, it is to be hoped that the two countries will maintain the
cordial relations that have subsisted between them so long”.’^®^ Ties between India
and Burma were strengthened by Jawaharlal Nehru’s visit to Burma ‘after the
separation of the latter from India. In Burma, he addressed over 300 meetings, met
most of the important leaders of Burma and Indians settled in Burma.^'’® Replying
to a civic address presented to him by the Mayor of Rangoon Corporation, Nehru
declared that he had come to Burma as “the bearer of a message of goodwill from
India’and added that Burma and India must still work together, though geo¬
graphically separated, and appealed for co-operation and preservation of the
friendly spirit between Indians and Burmans.^"''*

All these facts revealed that Indians never stood in the way of the Barmans in
the realisation of their national objectives. Beyond doubt, the Indians domiciled in
Burma were anti-separationists and lent their support to the anti-separationists and
to the anti-separation parties in Burma because they feared that separation would
mean restrictions upon foreigners and Indian interests would suffer and their posi¬
tion would be weakened. However, Indian opinion on the subject of the separation
of Burma had been uniform and clear and it always stressed that the question was
one for decision by the people of Burma alone. What Indian public opinion had
been demanding was that the question of separation should be left to the decision
of Burmans, adequate opportunity should be given to them to express their views
and that if the Burmans voted in favour of separation, Indians settled in Burma
should have the same rights of citizenship and other privileges as other sections of
the population.

Friendly relation between India and Burma was temporarily disturbed in 1938,
when riots occured in Burma. The riot was a religio-communal outbreak but it
manifested “the anti-foreign feeling of the awakening Burman In the riot non-
Muslim Indians were not molested. The riot caused unbounded misery to the
Indians settled in Burma and a sense of insecurity prevailed among them. Indian
public opinion took up the cause of Indians in Burma and urged both the Burmans
and Indians to settle their disputes amicably. On August 18, 1938, Madras Legisla¬
tive Council passed a resolution deploring the recent riots in Burma and hoped that
effective measures to preserve life and property and to prevent the recurrence of
the trouble would be taken. It recommended that a committee should be appoint¬
ed to inquire into the disturbances and to suggest measures for permanent peace
and goodwill between the Indians living in Burma and the Burmans. Rajagopala-
chari, the Chief Minister of Madras, accepting it whole heartedly on behalf of the
Government, expressed sympathy with the victims and congratulated the Burma
Government in having been able to restore peace and order.’”

The All India Congress Committee in September, 1938 expressed its sympathy
with the Indian sufferers during the riots that have broken out in Burma resulting in
heavy casualties and loss of property. The Congress Committee trusted that there
would be a thorough and impartial enquiry into the damage done to life and pro-

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement {1930-1945)

139

pcrty of the Indians and demanded assurance of the safety of life and property of
the Indians who had settled in Burma for generations together without let or
hindrance While demanding protection of the rights and life of the Indians in Burma
the All India Congress Committee reiterated the long tradition of friendship between
the two countries and appealed to the Government and the people of Burma to see
that nothing was done to disturb the happy relations subsisting between India and
Burma. The Congress Committee also advised the Indian settlers in Burma to rely
more upon their ability, by strictly just dealing to cultivate friendship with the
Burmans than upon any aid that might be rendered by the mother country or the
Government of India.^'*'* This attitude of the Congress indicated India’s cherished
desire to live at friendly terms with the neighbouring people of Burma.

The ill-feeling temporarily created by the riot did not estrange the relations bet¬
ween India and Burma, Friendship and goodwill for Burma continued in India.
Subhas Chandra Bose, the president of the Indian National Congress for the year
1938, voiced the sentiments of the Indian people when he observed : “We cherish
feeling of friendship, cordiality and esteem for Burma and her culture and civilisa¬
tion with which we have so much in common. We also feel that Burma must have
her freedom just as India must. But we expect our Burmese friends to do justice to
the Indian minority.”^®®

Nationalists in Burma also looked to India for inspiration and guidance. The
Indian National Congress was source of inspiration to the Young Thakins, a group
of nationalists in Burma, who were very popular and elTective during the struggle
for Burmese independence. The proclamations and methods of the Indian National
Congress were studied, indeed often copied by the Burmese nationalist organisa¬
tions, At a conference of the Dobama Asia Yone (Thakin Kodow Hraaing Group)
held in April, 1939 the current programme of the Congress was placed before the
conference by Thakins Aung San, Nu and others and adopted in toto.^®“ Burmese
nationalists not only derived inspirations from the Congress but also attended the
meetings of the Congress to have a first hand knowledge of the working of the
Indian nationalist party. In March, 1940 Auag San, Than Tun and a few others
made a tour of India and attended the Ramgarh session of the congress and met
Gandhi and Nehru.^®^ These visits of the fraternal delegates from Burma contribut¬
ed to strengthening of the relations between the two countries. Indian and Burmese
nationalism, co-operated closely at a respectable distance in 1935.

Need for the Indo-Burmese co-operation was highlighted at the Tripuri session
of the Indian National Congress, in 1939 when Satyamurti, a veteran Congress
leader, appealed to the goodsense of the people of Burma to preseve the fraternal
and harmonious relations between India and Burma.^®^ Damodar Savarkar, a pro¬
minent leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, in a statement reiterated the need for co¬
operation between India and Burma and declared that towards the neighbouring
states of Burma and Tibet, the policy of the Hindu Mahasabha would always be,
so far as possible, of whole hearted friendship and if they liked even of a political
alliance because India’s interests and the interests of Burma and Tibet were not

antagonistic.^®® . ^ ,

Not content with only voicing sympathy with Burma, the Congress leaders also

thought in terms of some sort of Asiatic Federation in which Burma was to occupy

140

indian Nationalism and Asia

an important position. In 1940, when Jawaharlal Nehru advocated a scheme of
Asiatic federation, Burma formed the part of that regional organisation.^®* The
Working Committee of the Indian National Congress in December, 1941, despite
its pre-occupations with its own problems, expressed deep sympathy with the people
of Burma in the trials and hardships they were facing as a result of the world con¬
flagration.*®'’The All India Congress Committee in August. 1942 demanded the
freedom of all Asian countries including that of Burma.*®®

Despite her own uncertain future. Nationalist India remained sympathetic to the
national aspirations of the Burmese people. Vijay Lakshmi Pandit, on behalf of
the India League of America and the National Committee for India’s Freedom,
submitted a memorandum to the San Francisco Conference on May 4, 1945 calling
for an immediate declaration of India’s freedom. While making attempts to enlist
India’s case for freedom, the Indian leader also demanded the freedom for Burma.*®^
In an interview with Paul Fang, special correspondent of the Central News Agency,
China, Jawaharlal Nehru stressed the need of the freedom of Burma.*®*

In the closing years of the Second World War the whole of Asia was seething
with discontent and nationalist movements became intense everywhere. Keeping
in view the political situation in Burma the British Government issued a White
Paper for Burma in 1945 in which the Governor's personal rule was envisaged for
Burma for three years at the end of which elections were to be held and thereafter
Burma was to get self-rule. The White Paper prescribed the steps and phases by
which full self-government within the British Commonwealth would be established
in Burma proper. The White Paper also made the Scheduled Areas inhabited by the
indigenous races of the highlands subject to a special regime under the Governor
until such time as their inhabitants signified their desire for some suitable form of
amalgamation of their territories with Burma proper.*"® The Anti-Fascist Peoples’
Freedom League of Burma and Aung San, one of the topmost nationalist leaders of
Burma, resented the provisions of the White Paper.*’” Indians, who had stood both in
wealor woe with the Burmese people, expressed resentment against the White Paper.
Moved by a friendly feeling towards Burma, Jawaharlal Nehru commenting upon
the White Paper on June 25, 1945 remarked at Bombay that it seemed to be a com¬
pletely unsatisfactory document. If the British Government desired to meet the
wishes of the Burmese people, Nehru declared, the former would have to revise it’s
policy.”' It was this intense love and .sympathy for Burma and other South-East
Asian Countries that prompted the Congress Working Committee in June, 1945 to
instruct the Congress participants in the Simla Conference to make it crystal clear
that upon the conclusion of the war in South-East Asia, the Indian Government
could not support a policy of continuing imperialist control in the countries of
South-East Asia of which Burma formed an integral part.*’ ’ Thus, inspite of its
pre-occupations with its own freedom struggle and the difficult situations arising
out of the presence of Indians in Burma, the Indian Nationalist Movement, on the
whole, remained sympathetic to Burma in her national aspirations.

India and the Middle East: With the opening of the 20th century a new sort of
relationship developed between India and the countries belonging to West Asia.
The Middle Eastern Countries placed under the Mandatory control of the west¬
ern imperialists were fighting for independence. Nationalist India looked upon them

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement (1930-1945)

141

as brothers-in bondage. India was involved in this region through its Muslim popula¬
tion and Indian Muslims and their premier organisation. The AH India Muslim
League, kept a watchful eye on the developments in the Middle Eastern countries
and expressed their solidarity with these countries with whom they had cultural,
religious and emotional attachment. As the Asian mindedness of Muslims was
narrowly restricted to places and ideas connected with lslam,^^“ the Muslims of
India evinced a keen interest in the Muslim countries of Asia. Indian Muslims had,
however, no monopoly over this relation with Middle Eastern Countries. Even the
Hindus and the Indian National Congress rallied to the support of the countries
belonging to this region.

The plantation of the Jewish Home in the heart of the Muslim Countries caus¬
ed unlimited annoyance to the Arab countries and Palestine problem became a
cancer in the body of Middle Eastern politics The British policy of placating the
Jews and the huge number of Jews immigration in Palestine caused ill-feeling bet¬
ween the Jews and the Arabs and sometimes sporadic outbursts of communal frenzy
were the results. The Jews claimed a national home in Palestine which the Arabs
considered as an infringement of their rights.

Indian Muslims, like the Arabs, believed that there would be no peace in
Palestine until the Balfour Declaration was scrapped and in this demand the
Indian Muslims were supported by the non-Muslim communities in India. The
Executive Board of the All India Muslim Conference held at Simla on September
8, 1929 emphatically protested against the aggressive Zionist Movement in Pales¬
tine being allowed to interfere with the existing rights of Muslims in their sacred
places of worship and regarded the existing unhappy Jewish-Arab situation in that
state as the inevitable effect of the Balfour Declaration whereby outside influence
was enabled to rouse dreams and aspirations among the Jews in Palestine for a
separate home state and outside influences had embittered the hitherto harmonious
relation between the Jews and the Arabs in Palestine. The Board offered heartfelt
sympathy to their co-religionists in Palestine in their sufferings resulting from the
unhappy occurrences on the issue of Wailing Wall and hoped that the British-
Government as the Mandatory power would not only abstain from encouraging the
Zionists in their aggressive attitude but would also take steps to bring about a speedy
establishment of a truly representative democratic government as demanded by the
Arab population The Ulema Conference held at Kanpur in December, 1929
expressed dissatisfaction with the British Mandate and urged that Palestine be con¬
stituted as a free self-governing country.

Palestine problem agitated the Indians in general and the Indian Muslims in
particular. The ever increasing number of Jewish immigrants in Palestine posed a
serious Uireat to the Arab Community in Palestine. Indian support was entirely on
the side of the Arabs and the Indians considered the establishment of Jewish
national home as an imperialist device to divide the people of the Middle East to
which the Jews had become a party. The All India Muslim Conference held on
February 15, 1934, requested the Aga Khan to pay particular attention to the
Palestine problems.”” The Council of the All India Muslim League held at Delhi
in April, 1934 strongly supported the proposal of a strong and influential delegation
to wait on the Viceroy to lay before him as to how the Balfour Declaration had

142

Indian Nationalism and Asia

supported the Jews of the World to buyland and settle down in Palestine which
would deprive the original inhabitants, namely the Muslims and Christians and
Arabs and ruin the peace of the sacred land. The Council expressed its sympathy
with the Arabs in Palestine and assured them of its heart felt concern and
support.^”

The increase in Jewish immigration was followed by violent Arab, attacks on
government policy and it was alleged that the Government desired to drive the
Arab nation away from its homeland. They organised an Arab High Committee
consisting of all Arab parties. Disturbances began on a large scale in April, 1936
and the Arabs attacked the Jews and resorted to a general strike throughout the
country. The country was convulsed by civil war and revolution.^’® The British
Government decided to appoint a Royal Commission headed by Lord Peel to in*
vestigate into the Palestine affairs and to suggest measures to solve them. The Mus¬
lims of India viewed with relief the appointment of the Commission. The Star of
India, a Muslim daily newspaper, appreciated the wisdom of the British Govern*
ment in deciding to appoint a Royal Commission to investigate into the causes of
the disturbances in Palestine.

Jawaharlal Nehru, who was well versed in international politics, expressed his
sympathy with the Palestine Arab Movement against imperialist designs of the
West. Inspite of his sympathy for the poor plight of the Jews in the world his
sympathies were entirely on the side of the Arabs. He maintained that few could
withhold their deep sympathy from the Jews who had undergone centuries of
oppression and who were undergoing a very severe trial in Germany yet he made it
clear that no one could sympathise with the Zionist movement aiming at the
establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine under the protection of British
imperialism. Nehru regarded the Balfour Declaration as a gross betrayal of Arabs
by British imperialism. Admitting that the Jews had a right to visit Jerusalem as a
holy land, he stated that Palestine was a holy land for the Arabs, Muslims, and
Christians as well who had been the sons of the soil for the last thirteen hundred
years or more. It was possible for some Jews to go to Palestine and settle there in an
amicable manner but if they desired to go there with the object of domiaating the
country and establishing their stronghold there it was vain attempt to expect that
the Arabs would welcome them. To Nehru the problem of Palestine was a
nationalist one; for the Arabs were fighting against imperialist control. It was there¬
fore a pity, that instead of aligning themselves with that struggle against imperia¬
lism, Nehru pointed out, the Jews of Palestine had taken the side of British
imperialism and desired its protection against the natives of the country.”* Stepp¬
ing in the shoes of Nehru the Congress Working Committee held on July 1, 1936
sent its greetings and full sympathy to the Arabs in Palestine in their struggle for
independence against British imperialism.^®*

To express sympathy for the Arabs in Palestine the Muslims of U.P. organised
the Provincial Palestine Conference at Allahabad on July 18, 1936. Maulana
Qutubuddin Abdul Wali, the president of the Conference, lamented that after making
a number of promises to the Palestinian Arabs, Britain, unmindful of those pro¬
mises, was using the Jews as instruments for strengthening her hold upon Palestine
and congratulated the Palestinian Arabs for their brave stand against tremendous

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement {1930-1945) 143

odds.'®^ Nehru in his message to this Conference expressed his s>mpatby and soli¬
darity with the Arabs, who were fighting bravely for the freedom of their country.
This struggle, Nehru emphatically stated, bad nothing to do with religion. It was
not against the Jews. It was a national struggle in which the Arabs of different
faiths were joining hands for the common object of securing independence for their
country. “And, thus there is much in common between their struggle and ours”,
Nehru remarked, “and even on the narrow grounds of self interest we in India
should support and sympathise with the Arabs. 1 trust that this Arab struggle in
Palestine will help us to see our own struggle in a proper perspective and make us
forget our internal divisions in the face of common adversary/””" The Sindh Cong¬
ress Socialist Conference held at Karachi on July 18, 1936 under the presideniship of
M.R. Masani sent its greetings to the Arabs in Palestine and hoped that they would
keep up the fight till their objective of an independent Palestine was achieved.'

Sympathy for the Arabs in Palestine was felt by all sections of people in India.
Maulana Ahmed Sayeed, the president of the first session of the Bihar Muslim
Independent Party Conference held at Patna on September 12, 1936 criticised the
British Government’s policy in regard to Palestine.'®^ Asaf Ali tabled an adjour-
ment motion in the Legislative Assembly on September It, 1936 to discuss the
failure of the Government of India in inviting the attention of the British Govern¬
ment to the danger of pursuing the policy of denying the indigenous population of
Palestine their legitimate right of self determination.'®'' Sir, Md. Yakub raised the
Palestine issue on September 14, 1936, in the Indian Legislative Assembly. Jmnah
and Shaukat Ali asked the Government of India to clarify the British policy to¬
wards Palestine.'®®

To express its solidarity with the Arabs in Palestine the Indian National Cong¬
ress observed on September 26, 1936, as Palestine Day on which meetings and
demonstrations in favour of the Arabs were held all over the country.'®’ A mass
meeting was held at Allahabad in support of the Arabs. Speaking on the occasion
Jawaharlal Nehru observed that in Palestine the problem was one of the Arabs
and Jews but it was never a religious problem as some of the Indian Muslims
thought it to be. It was a problem of growing nationalism desiring freedom and
being suppressed by imperialism. Nehru appreciated the brave Arab people for
putting up valiant fight in the cause of national independence. Expressing his
heartfelt sympathy with the Arabs Nehru declared, “Our sympathies and good
wishes must go out to the people of Palestine in this hour of their distress. The
crushing of their movement is a blow to our nationalist struggle as well as to
their’s. We hang together in this world struggle for freedom”.'®®

A resolution conveying Bombay citizen’s full sympathy to the Arabs in Pales¬
tine was adopted at a public meeting held under the auspices of the Bombay
Provincial Congress Committee to celebrate Palestine Day. In a short speech,
Sarojini Naidu stated that the fight against imperialism was a world fight and
therefore, it was the moral duty of the exploited people like Indians to sympathise
with the Arabs fighting for independence from British domination.'®" A meeting of
the Executive Board of the All India Muslim League viewed with grave concern
and abhorrence the happenings in Palestine and the attitude of the British in crush¬
ing the legitimate aspirations of the Arabs and in enforcing Jewish immigration n

144

Indian Nationalism and Asia

Palestine against the principle of self-deterraination. A warning was struck to the
Government of India that this policy would cause disastrous repercussions through¬
out the Islamic world including India. The resolution further asked the British
Government to make a prompt change in their policy in Palestine.^**®

A Muslim delegation headed by Md. Yakub submitted an apeal on September
28, 1936 to the Viceroy urging a revision of repressive British policy in Palestine.”^
A meeting of the Working Committee of the Central Jamiat-ul-ulema-i-Hind held
at Kanpur called upon the British Government to fulfil the Arab demands. Express¬
ing sympathy with the Arabs the Committee emphasised the need of a medical
mission and financial help to Arab High Committee of Palestine.^®“ The Working
Committee of the Bengal Muslim Youngmen’s League at Calcutta on October 1,
1936 viewed with alarm the attitude of the British Government as the mandatory
power in Palestine and recorded its protests against the promulgation of the Mar¬
tial Law for the suppression of the Arabs’ struggle for their legitimate rights. The
Committee also expressed its sympathy with the Arabs and urged the Muslims of
India to help the Arabs in every possible way.^®'* A meeting held at Birbhum on
October 14, 1936 strongly protested against the action of the British Government in
Palestine and requested the Viceroy of India to consider the seriousness of the
situation and to request the British Government to change its policy and congratu¬
lated the Arabs for their heroic struggle for the freedom of their motherland.'®’ The
three day session of the All India Palestine Conference held in November, 1936
sympathised with the Arabs and protested against the pro-.Tewish policy of
Britain.^"®

The Royal Commission’s report was published in July, 1937. The report stated
that the promises made to Jews and Arabs were irreconciliable and the Mandate in
its existing form was unworkable. The Royal Commission, therefore, proposed the
division of the country into a Jewish and of an Arab states, with a small residuary
enclave from Jafla to Jerusalem left in charge of the Mandatory. When the Indians
came to know of the British move to divide Palestine, the various political associa¬
tions came forward to support the cause of the Arabs and the Royal Commission’s
recommendation to partition Palestine was highly resented by the Indians. The
Provincial Ahrar Conference held at Lucknow on April 19, 1937 protested against
the pro-Jewish policy of the British Government in Palestine and demanded that
the Arabs should be allowed to lead a free life.^®** On August 1, 1937 a meeting of
the Muslims of Calcutta protested against the plan of partitioning Palestine into
two parts.'®’ Addressing the All India Palestine Conference held in September, 1937
to express sympathy with the Arabs in their fight for freedom Shaukat Ali declared
that every Muslim in India felt strongest sympathy for the brave Arabs. A.R.
Siddiqi, the president of the Conference, urged the Muslims of India to raise their
voice in unison with the rest of the Muslim World against the contemplated ampu¬
tation of Palestine and warned the British Government that it would be wrong to
put eighty millions of Indian Muslims into the difficult position of chosing between
loyalty to their state and loyalty to their faith.""*

The Conference urged upon the Government of Britain to revise its Middle
Eastern policy and recommended that the Arabs be invited in accordance with the
Solemn understandings entered into with them and the pledges given to the Muslim

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement fl930~l945)

145

World to establish a free and independent form of democratic government of their
own choice with adequate safeguards for non-Arab minorities, should be fulfilled.
The Conference requested the Aga Khan to place before the Assembly of the
League of Nations the sentiments of India and the Muslim world on the question
of Palestine and to see that the fundamental principle of the Covenant was imple¬
mented in the case of Palestine. The Conference further decided to send a Deputa¬
tion to Muslim countries and Europe to represent the Indian viewpoint in regard
to Palestine and to seek the annulment of the scheme of its partition.**®

Muslim members of the Central Legislature in India in a statement on October
10, 1937 noted with concern the developments in Palestine and expressed their
sympathy with their Arab brethren in the great fight against the heavy odds to
safeguard legitimate rights and to save the Holy land from Zionist aggression and
demanded that the whole of Palestine be handed over to the Arabs, sons of the soil
and the mandate in Iraq be terminated."®® The All India Shia Political Conference
held at Lucknow on October 12, 1937 condemned the Royal Commission’s recom¬
mendation for the division of Palestine.*®' Raja of Mahmudabad, the Chairman of
the Reception Committee of the twenty-fifth session of the All India Muslim League
held at Lucknow in October, 1937, pointed out that Indian Muslims were anxiously
watching the developments in Palestine and warned the British Government that
any further inroads upon the rights of the Arabs of Palestine would start a confla¬
gration which would lead to disastrous results.""'* In his presidential address Jinnah
told the British Government that the question of Palestine, if not fairly met, boldly
and courageously decided, was going to be the turning point in the history of the
British Empire. He further asked the British Government to fulfil the promises
made to the Arabs and warned the British Government that Great Britain would
be digging its grave if she failed to honour her original proclamations and promises.
Expressing India’s support to the Arab cause Jinnah stated: “The Muslims of India
will stand solid and will help the Arabs in every way they can in their brave and
just struggle that they are carrying on against all odds.”*"* The All India Muslim
League wished that the recommendations of the Royal Commission should not be
complied with for they were opposed to the religious sentiments of the Muslims.-® *
The Indian National Congress regarded Palestine as the home of the Arabs
where the Jews should enjoy special privileges. The All India Congress Committee
at its meeting at Calcutta in October, 1937 recorded its emphatic protest against the
reign of terror that had been established in Palestine by British imperialism with the
single object to coerce the Arabs to accept the proposed partition of Palestine and
assured the Arabs of India's help in their struggle for national freedom.*®-* The fifty-
first session of the Indian National Congress held in February, 1938 condemned the
plan for partition of Palestine, protested against the repressive policy of Britain and
expressed sympathy with the Arabs. It suggested that the only proper method to
solve the Arab-Jewish conflict was peaceful settlement between the two communi¬
ties and appealed to the Jews to realise the gravity of the situation and not to seek
the shelter of the British mandatory administration and not to become instrumental
in the exploitation in the interest of British imperialism.*®® Addressing the Peace
and Empire Conference in London on July 15, 1938 Nehru held the British Impe¬
rialism responsible for the unrest in Palestine and suggested that the Palestine

146

Indian Nationalism and Asia

problem could be solved ouly when the Arabs and the Jews would forget their diife*
rences and would come to an agreement with each other. He further pointed out
that the issue could be solved only by the two parties coming together and not by
British imperialism.*'"’

To express India’s solidarity with the Arabs Palestine Day was observed at
Calcutta on August 7, 1938. A public meeting held at the Town Hall expressed its
indignation at the British policy in Palestine and pledged fullest support to the
Arabs of Palestine in their valiant fight for freedom.-"® A mass meeting held at
Calcutta on August 26, 1938 condemned the imperialist and anti Arab policy pur¬
sued by the British Government in Palestine and expressed the view that the estab¬
lishment of an independent national government in Palestine, with adequate safe¬
guards for the minorities and the termination of the Mandate were the only solutions
for the restoration of peace in Palestine. The meeting sent its fraternal greetings to
the Arabs in Palestine and wished them success in their unequal fight against the
forces of imperialism.*'"" Not only at Calcutta but all over India Palestine Day was
observed on August 26, 1938. Thousands and thousands of meetings were held and
lent their support to the Arabs who were fighting for their country’s freedom.-’"

Indians were so much agitated over the fate of the Arabs in Palestine that they
could not afibrd to miss any opportunity when they could have exhibited their
support for the Arab cause An Indian delegation also attended the World Parlia¬
mentary Congress of Arab and Muslim countries for the Defence of Palestine
which met in Cairo in October, 1938. The Sindh Provincial Muslim League held at
Karachi on October 8, 1938 prayed for the success of this world conference in
achieving a satisfactory solution of the Palestine problem. The League Conference
declared that to achieve a lasting settlement of Palestine issue, it was highly essen¬
tial that the British Government should invalidate Balfour Declaration, withdraw
the scheme of partition of Palestine as recommended by the Royal Commission and
confer full independence upon Palestine.*'^’ M.A. Jinnah, who presided over the
Sindh Muslim League Conference, referred to the ruthless suppression of the Arabs
by British imperialism and declared that the heart of every Mussalmun of India was
with the Arabs in their brave and outstanding struggle.*'’-

Gandhiji also condemned the persecution of the Jews in Germany in an
emphatic manner and was opposed to the idea of a Jewish National Home and
asked the Jews to make that country their home where they were born, brought up
and where they earned their bread. “Palestine belongs to the Arabs”, observed
Gandhi, “and any Jewish immigration there should not result in a National Home;
Zionist or Arab violence is wrong and Zionism, if persisted in, will cause the World¬
wide expulsion of the Jews to their National Home or at least raise the problem of
dual political allegiance.”*”*' Gandhi detested the manner in which Arabs and Zionists
were proceeding and also criticised Arab excesses and advised the Jews in Palestine
to give up their reliance on force and try to win Arab heart. Gandhiji firmly declared
that Palestine belonged to the Arabs in the same sense that England belonged to the
English or France to the French.*”'’ Like Gandhi, Nehru, was also sympathetic to
the Jews for their pitiable lot caused by the Jews-hunting in Germany but he was
opposed to the plan of a Jewish national home in an Arab land. “Palestine is an
Arab country’*, remarked Nehru, **and Arab interests must prevail there.*’***^®

Consolidation of the Indian Nationatism Movement (1930-1945)

147

In his presidential address to the annual session of the AH India Muslim
League held at Patna in December, 1938, M.A. Jinnah appreciated the heroic fight
given by the Arabs against the British imperialism and assured the Arabs that
India’s sympathies were with them and declared that Muslims of India would not
shirk from any sacrifice if required to help the Arabs.®^* On January 31, 1939,
H.S. Suhrawardy, Secretary of Bengal Provincial Muslim League, issued an appeal
stating that Palestine Day should be observed on February 8, 1939 throughout
India to express the solidarity of the Indian Muslims with the Arabs in Pales¬
tine.®” According to the programme of the AH India Muslim League on February
8, 1939 over sixty thousands Muslims of Calcutta, Howrah, 24 Paraganas and sub¬
urbs demonstrated solidarity of Muslim India with the United Arab Front by
taking part in the demonstrations, processions and meetings held to celebrate All
India Palestine Day, The demonstrators paraded placards and raised slogans like
‘*Falistan Azad, Bartania Barbad”, “Down with British Imperialism”, Down
with Zionism”, “Muslim India solidly behind Palestine Arabs”, “Down with the
British Mandate”.-’" Palestine Day was observed at Dumka, Chapra, Madras and
resolutions sympathising with the Arabs were passed.®’® In Bihar, Palestine
Day was observed at Jehanabad, Rangpur, Muzatfarpur and resolutions suppor
ting the Arab demands and assuring India's solidarity with the Arabs were
adopted.®®”

The Jamiat-ul-ulema-i-Hind Conference held in March, 1939, urged the fulfil¬
ment of the Arab demands for the constitution of Palestine into self governing
state and the complete stoppage of Jewish immigration into Palestine.®®’ The U.P.
Muslim League held at Gorakhpur on March 18, 1939 regarded Palestine issue not
only as a problem of the Arabs but of the entire Muslim world.®®® The annual
session of the Indian National Congress held in 1939 sent greetings and good-
wishes to the Arabs and wished them success.®®® The Council of the All India
Muslim League held in April, 1939 placed on record its deep sense of sorrow at the
sad demise of the Shah of Iraq and conveyed its sincere sympathy to the members
of the Royal family and the people of Iraq in their tragic loss.®®'’ Sikandar Hyat
Khan, the president of the Bombay Muslim League Conference held in May, 1939
at Sholapur, declared that the Muslims of India had deep friendly feelings for the
Arabs in Palestine and urged the British Government to settle the Palestine issue
in a just manner.®®” The Sindh Provincial Ahrar Conference held at Karachi on
June 12, 1939, expressed sympathy with Palestine Arabs in their struggle for
freedom.®®®

Deteriorating law and order situation and perpetual struggle between the Jews
and the Arabs in Palestine compelled the British Government to announce a new
policy in May, 1939. The 1939 White Paper proposed to create an independent
Palestinian state in treaty relations with British at the end of ten years. Seventy-five
thousand Jewish immigrants were to be admitted in the first five years, after which
further immigration was to depend on Arab consent.®”

The 1939 White Paper on Palestine was a deep shock to the Indian people.
The Working Committee of the AH India Muslim League held in July 1939 at Bom¬
bay stated that the proposals embodied in the While Paper were most unsatisfactory
and disappointing and were totally unacceptable. The Committee urged the British

148

Indian Nationalism and Asia

Government to meet the Arab demands and appointed a committee to collect
funds for the relief of the Arab sufferers in Palestine.^"* An emergent meeting of
the Working Committee of the All India Muslim League held in Delhi on Septem¬
ber 18, 1939 pointed out that the policy of the British Government towards the
Palestinian Arabs had wounded deeply Muslim sentiments and urged upon the
Government of Britain to satisfy the Arab national demands.®'® In a letter to the
Viceroy, Jinnah impressed upon the Government that a solution of the Palestine
issue should be found to the satisfaction of the Arabs.®*® Speaking from the presi¬
dential Chair in the twenty-seventh session of the All India Muslim League held at
Lahore in March, 1940 M.A. Jinnah asked the British Government to reach a
settlement on Palestine issue satisfactory to the Arabs and also urged the British
Government not to send Indian troops against any Muslim country,®*’ The Con¬
ference viewed with alarm the inordinate delay on the part of the British Govern¬
ment in coming to a settlement with the Arabs in Palestine The Muslim League
recorded its considered opinion that no arrangement of piecemeal character would
be made in Palestine which were contrary to the pledges given to the Muslim
World, and particularly to the Muslims in India during the First World War.®*®
During the stormy day.s of the Second World War when Germany attacked
Russia, then one of the only two routes by which contact between Russia and
Britain could he established was through Persia, where the Germans had been
building up their staffs of technicians and spies. Russia and Britain made a joint
demand that the Persian Government should expel them but the Persian Govern¬
ment replied that Persia alone would decide about the foreigners to be expelled.
This reply caused the Joint Anglo-Russian invasion of Persia in August, 1941 at a
time when Reza Shah, the ruler of Iran, was facing troubles created by the unruly
tribes. By September, 1941, Reza Shah was forced to abdicate in favour of his young
son.®** The humiliating treatment meted out to Iran by Britain and Russia caused
widespread uproar in India and the Muslims of India condemned the unprovoked
invasion of Iran by Britain and Russia. The Working Committee of the All India
Muslim League in August, 1941 viewed with alarm the invasion of Iran by Britain
and Russia and declared that the Mussulmans of India were greatly perturbed at the
military occupation of certain Muslim states by Great Britain and her allies. The
Committee warned the Government of India that this action of the Allies would
complicate the Near East situation and would alienate the sympathies of Muslims
of India and create bitterness in their hearts which would result in the withdrawal
of every help by them to the Allied cause.®*^ln October, 1941, Jinnah declared that
if the British Government did not make it clear as to what their intensions were
regarding Muslim states and also that they had no designs on their sovereignty and
independence, it would be very difficult to control Muslim India any more.®*® The
Council of the All India Muslim League considered the entry of the British and
Soviet troops in the Kingdom of Iran as an act of open aggression and in view of
the existing conditions, believed that the European Governments were determined
to bring all the Islamic countries under their heel for their own selfish ends, and
therefore, the Council warned the British and the other European Governments
that the Mussalmaus of India would not tolerate any foreign power's interference
in any of the Islamic Countries.®**

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement {1930-1945)

149

The intensity of Indian Muslim’s feeling for the peoples of West Asia was
amply demonstrated by the two events which occurred in the Muslim League session
in October 1941. When the Council of the All India Muslim League was reviewing
the situation in Iran, Shaikh Ahmed from Punjab attempted to argue that there was
no need of passing any more resolution, he was interrupted with shouts of ‘‘Sit
Down, we do not want to hear you”. Another incident took place when Sikandar
Hyat Khan, the Premier of Punjab, attempted to stop the League from adopting a
resolution on Iran stating that Rcza Shah was pro-Nazi and the people of Iran did
not like him, he was greeted with prolonged shouts of ‘‘we do not want any attack
on Reza Shah”.®”

The All India Azad Muslim Board in March, 1942 recorded its fullest sympathy
with Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Iraq and Iran in their sad plight and hoped that all of
them would emerge strong and free in a world, free from aggression and exploita-
tion.-““ The Working Committee of the All India Ahrar Conference held at Lahore
in August, 1942 reiterated its sympathy for the independence of the Islamic coun-
tries.-^” In his message to the Muslims of India on the occasion of Id-ul-Fitr in
October, 1942, Jinnah stated, ‘‘while we are engaged in our struggle for freedom and
independence let us not forget our brethren who in other parts of the world are doing
likewise. Let us pray for their success. Let us also pray for these Muslim states who
are independent and sovereign that God may help them to preserve and maintain
their independence and sovereignty”.”^'*

No meeting of the Muslim League ever passed without paying attention to the
Middle Eastern Countries with whom Muslims of India desired to cultivate friendly
relations. The Council of the All India Muslim League in November, 1942 regretted
that inspite of its proclamations that Britain was fighting for justice and right of all
nations to be independent, she was trying to force Jewish domination over the
Arabs against their will. The Council of Muslim League declared its solidarity with
the Muslim brothers outside the country and urged upon the British Government to
do justice to the Arabs in Palestine."^^ The annual se.ssion of the All India Muslim
League held in Delhi in April 1943 viewed with grave concern the new Zionist pro¬
paganda in America which was pressurising the U.S. Government to remove all
restrictions on Jewish immigration into Palestine and to adopt the policy of convert¬
ing Palestine into a Jewish state. The League condemned the evil designs to per¬
petuate a wrong on the Arabs and demanded the fulfilment of Arab national
demands for independence in Palestine and Syria and warned the British Govern¬
ment against any step which might prove detrimental to Arab national interests."^'
The Working Committee of the Muslim League in November, 1943 expressed alarm
over the Jewish propagandist agencies exercising their influence in America and
England for further immigration of Jews into Pale.stine which would be detrimental
to the just and legitimate rights of that country. The Working Committee strongly
warned the British Government that any further injustice done to Palestine Arabs
under Jewish or foreign influence would be greatly resented by the Muslims of
India.**® Through another resolution the Council of the Muslim League demanded
the abolition of the Mandate system and pleaded for restoration of Palestine, Syria
and Lebanon to the people of those countries to set up their own sovereign govern¬
ments The Council of the Muslim League viewed with profound alarm the grave

150

Indian Nationalism and Asia

situation that had arisen in Lebanon as a result of the action of the French authori¬
ties in forcibly suppressing the demand for full autonomy by the Lebane^ and
urged the British Government to secure full independence for Lebanon.^^^

Jinnah, who was the greatest defender of the Arabs in India, addressing the
Punjab Muslim Students’Federation at Lahore on March 18, 1944 expressed
sympathy with the Middle Eastern Countries.^^'^ In his presidential address to the
Assam Provincial Muslim League Conference held in April, 1944, Chowdhary
Khaliq-uz Zaman told the British Government that any change in the policy envi-
saged in the White Paper of 1939 for Palestine would be followed with grave conse¬
quences in India.®^* The Gaya Pakistan Conference held in April, 1944 expressed
concern at the situation in Palestine and requested the British Government to
adhere to the pledges given to the Muslims of India.-^’ The Azad Muslim Con¬
ference held in May, 1944 opposing the Pakistan demand of the Muslim League
drew attention of the Muslims of India to the unbreakable bonds of faith and
affection which united the Muslims of India to their Arab brethren in Palestine and
warned the British Government that if it once again broke its promises given in the
White Paper and surrendered to the financial pressure of the Jews and the dictates
of America, it would unleash the boundless indignation and hostility not only of
the Muslims of India but of the entire world.®^"

The interest of the Indian National Congress in the Middle Eastern Countries
was so intense and deep rooted that only a few days after the release of all promi¬
nent Congress leaders from a long period of three years of imprisonment, the
Congress Working Committee at its meeting at Bombay in June, 1945 noted with
deep regret and resentment the attacks on Syrian and Lebanese independence by
the French Government which were a violation not only of the specific pledges
given to the Syrians and Lebanese but also a negation of the principles proclaimed
by the United Nations.*

In fact, the whole of Nationalist India evinced a keen interest in the Middle
Eastern Countries. Curiously enough, the Muslim League and the Congress, which
held diametrically opposite views on internal problems in India, went on a parallel
line in regard to Palestine. Of course, the Muslim League and other Muslim
organisations viewed Palestine problem as a problem connected with their religion
and faith. To the Congress, Palestine problem posed a problem of nationalist
struggle against imperialism.

India and Far East; During the first three decades of the 20th century Indian
National Movement had taken a deep interest in the affairs of the Far Eastern
Countries and both China and Japan were her favourite nations. Whereas China
had evoked India’s interest as a similarly placed nation, Japan by her material,
political and industrial progress had become a model before the nationalist leaders
in India. But the developments in the Far East in 1930's reoriented India’s policy
towards China and Japan. Japan advanced her claims in Manchuria and seized it
in 1931. The rape of Manchuria by Japan caused a widespread sympathy for China
in India and Japan, which had so far been popular with Indians, began to be dis-
liked*'^ and from the very beginning of the Sino-Japanese hostilities the Indian
Nationalists’ sympathy was with the Chinese people. Japan’s invasion of Man¬
churia, a Cbinse province, worked a change in Indian nationalists’ dreams of an

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement {1930-1945)

151

Asian unity to be organised under Japan's leadership against the pretensions of the
Western peoples.*"

Sympathy for China became so deep and profound in India that even the
Indian delegates to the Assembly of the League of Nations could not fail to express
their love for China. When China appealed to the League of Nations, B.L. Mitter,
the Indian delegate to the twelfth session of League Assembly, said: “I would have
taken a miss in my country had I allowed this occasion to pass in silence, for no*
where has China's calamity stirred deeper sympathy than in India. This is not
merely due to the fact that China is our neighbour and a friendly neighbour; India
and China are linked together by material ties of a common civilisation. We are
stirred by the most personal feeling of sympathy.”*" Again in 1932 when the
Japanese invasion of Manchuria was being discussed in the League Assembly, the
Aga Khan, who headed the Indian delegation to the League Assembly, adopted a
conciliatory method of approach to the problem and urged both China and Japan
to settle their disputes in a peaceful manner and to seek the road to peace, recon¬
ciliation, adjustment and friendship and economic and intellectual co-operation in
the permanent interests of both the nations. Claiming himself to be a delegate of
the country which had a tradition of friendship with both China and Japan, the
Aga Khan expressed his sympathy with China but avoided a forth-right censure of
the Japanese aggression in China.*"

Speaking from the presidential chair of the Indian National Congress held in
1936, Nehru expressed concern over the Japanese advance in China and assured the
Chinese people of the sympathy of the Indian people in resisting the advancing
imperialism of Japan.*®'* Similar sentiments were expressed by other Indian
leaders and the nationalist newspapers. Rabindranath Tagore's sympathy with
China in her war against Japan was so profound that he disappointed Rash
Bihari Bose who had requested him to stop the Indian National Congress and
Nehru from adopting anti-Japanese attitude. Tagore could not conceal his anguish
over the contents of the letters sent to him by Rash Bihari Bose, the great Indian
revolutionary living in Tokyo, and told the latter that Japan had betrayed the
cause of the East by her activities in China and hence it was not possible for him to
keep the spontaneous and heartfelt sympathy of the Indians for China in check.*®®

Since the Manchurian crisis of 1931-32 China always remained under the peril
of Japanese imperialism. On the night of July?, 1937 the clash near Peiping bet¬
ween China and Japan precipitated a titanic struggle. At a time when China was
faced with a foreign invasion, internal strife between the Kuomintang and the
Communists plagued the life of the nation. Indians were anxious to see China
divided in an hour of national calamity and they desired to see China united against
Japan. To meet the Japanese aggression when the Communist Party and the Kuo¬
mintang Party reached a temporary settlement, M.N. Roy, a great Indian leader,
viewed these developments with pleasure and declared that such a co-operation was
the only way to the salvation of the Chinese nation and no one welcomed this
belated change in the Communist Party of China more heartily than the Indians.*®®

Indian Press lent support to China against Japan. The Hindustan Times wrote
that the Japanese Policy in China had so long been one of aggrandisement and to
expect the Nanking Government to swallow a pill so bitter was to ask her to commit

152

Indian Nationalism and Asia

suicide.^” Criticising the Japanese policy in China the Hindustan Times stated that
the protection of China was the responsibility of the League of Nations and there¬
fore, the League of Nations must intervene to prevent Japan's outrage on China.
“If it does not”, the paper concluded, ‘‘the sooner the costly show at Geneva is
wound up, the better will be for the preservation of honesty and security in inter¬
national dealing”.-'*"

When the Government of India despatched Indian troops to Shanghai in 1937,
the Indian National Congress protested against this policy. Bhulabhai Desai, S. Sat-
yamurti and Sarat Chandra Bose, the three veteran Congress leaders, criticised
the despatch of Indian troops to Shanghai to do the work of imperial policing."®®
On September 10, 1937, Nehru sent a cablegram to the International Peace Com-
paign Geneva in which he mentioned that the Indian National Congress was
opposed to Japanese aggression in China and was also opposed to the despatch of
Indian troops to China.-®® In a statement issued on September 14,1937, he criticised
the ruthless slaughter of thousands of human beings in China by Japan. He further
stated that the League of Nations had become an impotent organisation in as
much as that it could not dare even to discuss the Chinese issue. He urged the
Indian people to organise their protest against Japanese policy in China and to
observe September 26, 1937 asjChina Day to express India’s solidarity with China
and to condemn .tapanese aggii^sion and the despatch of Indian troops to China.-®^

India’s solidarity with China was well illustrated on September 26, 1937 when
China Day was observed throughout India. Meetings were held at Calcutta to express
India’s sympathy with China.'^®'^ A mass meeting held at Bombay condemned Japanese
aggression in China and the despatch of Indian troops to Shanghai and the atti¬
tude of the Great Powers and the League of Nations towards the Sino-Japanese
hostilities and suggested the boycott of all Japanese goods."®® Nearly one hundred
Cyclists paraded the streets of Bombay carrying anti-Japan posters and demonst¬
rated before the Japanese Consulate.®*^ The Hindustan Times dated October 7, 1937
pleaded for all round boycott of the Japanese goods."®® Subhash Chandra Bose also
remarked : “With all our admiration for Japan where such admiration is due, our
whole heart goes to China in her hour of trial. China must still live for her own
sake and for humanity.”®®®

Indians living in London could not remain unaffected by the wave of sympathy
for China in India caused by Japanese invasion of China. To express solidarity
with China they formed China-lndia Committee in London. Udav Shankar, an
Indian artist, and his associates performed charity show of their art to collect money
to help the Chinese in distress. Nehru congratulated Uday Shankar for this noble
task and declared, “The claim of common humanity, the bond that had tied us for
thousands of years, as well as self-interest impel us to show our full solidarity with
the people of China in this hour of their agony...We are weak today and unable
to do much for the people of China but hearts are with them, and it is well that
we should do our utmost to help them”.®®’

The Patna District Kisan Conference held at Bikram on October 25, 1937
expressed sympathy with the Chinese Government and condemned the horrible
activities of Japan in China.®*" The All India Congress Committee viewed with grave
concern the imperialist aggression of Japan in China attended with wanton cruelty

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement {1930-1945)

153

and the bombing of the civil population and applauded the brave and heroic struggle
of the Chinese people and congratulated them on achieving internal unity in the
face of national danger. The Congress Committee offered its heart felt sympathy to
the Chinese people and assured them of the solidarity of the Indian people with
them in their struggle for maintaining their freedom. The Congress Committee
urged upon the people of India to refrain from the use of Japanese goods as a mark
of their sympathy with the people of China.'"® The Allahabad District Political
Conference held in December, 1937 condemned the Japanese aggression in China
and requested the people to boycott Japanese goods. ’’®

Convinced of the sincere love and sympathy of India for the Chinese people,
some of the Chinese leaders appealed to the Indian people for moral and material ,
support against the Japanese. On October 4, 1937 V.K Wellington Koo, China’s ’
representative on the Council and first delegate to the Assembly of the League of
Nations, appealed to the Indians for their support to the Chinese nation in the in- j
human war imposed by Japan on China.-” On November 23, 1937, Agnes Smedlcy '
in a letter to Nehru appealed to the Indian National Congress to render monetary
help to the Chinese people to enable them to continue their tight against Japan, 1
Chu Teh, Commander in-Chief of the Eighth Route Army of China, wrote a letter |
to Nehru on November 26, 1937 and requested him to give linancial a.ssistance to i
China. “We ask you to consider this question in all seriousness”, Chu Teh wrote,
“to intensify your compaign to help u.s, to broaden and deepen your movement
for the boycott of Japanese goods and to educate your people about the facts of
our war of liberation.”-”*

These various appeals of the Chinese leaders had their favourable reaction in
India which intensified her attempts to help China. The All India Trade Union
Congress in January 1938 sent its greetings to the Chinese people and expressed
its solidarity with the workers, peasants and citizens of China in their struggle aga¬
inst Japanese aggression. It urged upon the people of India to boycott Japanese
goods and requested the people to contribute to the funds started for sending medi¬
cal supplies and other aid to the Chinese army.The Assam Mahila Conference
held at Gauhati on January 4, 1938 condemned the brutal and horrible atrocities
committed by .Tapaiiese Imperialism upon the innocent people of China and ex¬
pressed its full sympathy with the people of China in their heroic struggle. It request¬
ed the people of Assam to boycott Japanese goods. ’”'’

It was in response to the various appeals of the Chinese leaders for help and
assistance that ^pennd Chin a Day was observe d on Ja nuary_ 9 , 1938 throughout
India. The Students’ League, Central Calcutta District Committee, Port Trust Emp¬
loyees Association, North Calcutta District Congress Committee, 21 ward Congress
Committee, Bura Bazar Congre.ss Committee and Self Help Club organised meet¬
ings in support of China in all parts of Calcutta, condemned Japanese aggression
in China and appealed to the people of India to boycott Japanese goods as a mark
of practical sympathy with China.**’® Speaking at Allahabad on the occasion of the
China Day on .Tanuary 9, 1938. Nehru asked Indians to help China by boycotting
Japanese goods and by sending financial help to sufferers in China.-” Rabin dranath
Tagore also appealed to the people of India to assi.st China and he himself contri¬
buted five hundred rupees to the China Relief Fund started by ._ths, CongtessJ^’**

154

Indim Nationalism and Asia

Meetings were held in Tamilnadu and Nagpur to express synapathy with China and
to condemn Japan’s growing imperialism.^^”

The Bengal Provincial Conference held on January 30, 1938 resolved to boy¬
cott Japanese goods.*”” The annual session of the Indian National Congress held at
Haripura in February, 1938 reiterated its concern over the brutal invasion of China
and its previous calls upon the people of India to refrain from purchasing Japanese
goods.^”^ The All India Socialist Conference at its fourth session held at Lahore in
April 1938 sent greetings to the Nationalist Government of China for its brave
fight for defending freedom and democracy.®”” The Hindu in its editorial under the
Caption ‘‘Fit to Print” condemned Japanese atrocities in China and sympathised
with the Chinese who were defending their country from the attacks of Japan.
Disapproving the Japanese slogan of Asia for the Asiatics it wrote that Japan had
gone further than the fascist countries and was trying to persuade her enemies that
she was killing them for their own goods.””®

Indian’s sympathy for China became so widespread that June 12, 1938 was
observed as China Day to mark India’s solidarity with China in her hour of trial
and distress. Meetings were held throughout the country, resolutions were passed
and sympathy was expressed for China. Demonstrations were held in urban and
rural areas all over the country and money was collected for relief work in China.
At these meetings, the Chinese national flag was unfurled together with the flag of
the Indian National Congress as a symbol of solidarity.*’”^ The speeches delivered
on the occasion expressed more the sorrow than the anger that China should be the
victim of aggression by a nation that was by tradition and history closely associat¬
ed to her. The meetings repudiated Japan’s fellowship with modern imperialism.®”®
In response to the Congress President’s appeal, China Day was observed at
Calcutta on July 7, 1938. This meeting of the citizens of Calcutta viewed with grave
concern the continued fascist aggre.ssion of imperialist Japan upon China and strongly
condemned the methods of horror and frightfulness pursued by Japan in China.-””
Municipal Corporations of Calcutta and Madras, in July, 1938, raised their protests
under the instructions of the Congress and the Congress President against the Japan¬
ese bombardment of the open town of Canton. The Madras Corporation, moved
by the Japanese inhuman activities in China, also decided to declare a boycott of
Japanese goods for five years.®”®

Jawahar Lai Nehru excelled all the nationalist leaders in his love for China. In
his speech at the Conference on Peace and Empire organised by India League and
London Federation of Peace Councils, on July IS and 16, 1938, Nehru declared
that the invasion of Japan on China had brought India and China nearer to one
another.®”* As a representative of the Indian National Congress at the Conference
organised by International Peace Compaign on the Bombardment of Open Towns
and the Restoration of Peace held in Paris on July 23 and 24, 1938, Nehru declared
that each day’s news of bombing in China stabs me and makes me sick with the
horror of it.®”® He assured China of India’s full moral support in her task of
defending her freedom.®”® On November 17, 1938, he urged the people of India
not to be indifferent to the happenings in China.®”* In his letter to the Manchester
Guardian, he disapproved of Japan’s policy in China.®*®

Japan ran a low estimation in Indian public and admimlipn for Japan reached

155

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement {I930‘194S)

the lowest ebb during the Sino-Japanese hostilities and a sharp decline in
Japanese trade was caused by India’s resolve to boycott the Japanese goods.®
The anti-Japanese and pro-Chinese attitude prevalent in India was manifested in
the letters that passed on between Tagore^ind J apanese poet, Noguchi in.1938. In
his first letter to Tagore, Noguchi explained that the war in China was not the
criminal outcome nf Japan ’s surrender to the West rather it was the inevitable means
'terrible thought it was, for establishing a new order in the Asiatic continent.
“Believe me,’* Noguchi wrote to Tagore, “it is the War of Asia for Asia The War
is not for conquest, but for the correction of the mistaken idea of China’’.®*^ Tagore
in his reply to Noguchi disapproved of Japanese policy in China and gave a carp¬
ing reply to Noguchi and said : “You are building your conception of an Asia which
would be raised on a tower of skulls.’’®** Condemning large scale killing and blood¬
shed lanuched by Japan in China, Tagore declared that Noguchi’s doctrine of **Asia
for Asia" was “an instrument of political blackmail’’.®*® In a letter to his
Japanese friend, Tagore expressed his willingess to visit Japan to carry out his own
mission to do his best to establish a civilised relationship of national amity between
the two great peoples of Asia, namely the Chinese and the Japanese, who were eng¬
aged in a disolating mutual destruction. Expressing his doubts that the military au¬
thorities of Japan, who seemed to be determined to crush China, would allow him
the freedom to take his own course. Tagore wrote, “You know I have a genuine
love for the Japanese people and it is sure to hurt me too painfully to go and watch
crowds of them being transported by their rulers to a neighbouring land to perpet¬
rate acts of inhumanity which will brand their name with a lasting stain in the his¬
tory of Man’’.®*®

Gandhifi did not lag behind any other leader in his sympathy with China.
When Prof. Tao visited him, Gandbiji struck by China’s suffering, said movingly,
“T do want to see peace reigning in your land during ray life’’®** and nothing would
give him greater pleasure than to visit China one day.®**

India’s solidarity with China became more pronounced on September 1, 1938
when a Medical Mission consisting of fiv euiocta rs under t he le adership,QLPr,.Mj
India fnr Chj na.®** Commenting upon the despatch of the Indian Medical
Mission to China, Subhas Chandra Bose, the Congress President stated that the
Medical Mission symbolised India’s goodwill, esteem and sympathy for the Chinese
nation.®*! The thirty-first session of the U.P. Political Conference held in December,
1938 sent its greetings to the people of China and its deepest sympathy in their
trials and privations in the struggle for freedom against a ruthless and inhuman
imperialism. Welcoming the despatch of a Congress Medical Mission to China on
behalf of the Indian people the Conference hoped that this Mission would continue
to receive full financial support so that it might carry on its work of relief effecti¬
vely and be a worthy symbol of Indian solidarity with China.®*® The Indian
National Congress held at Tripuri in March, 1939 sent its greetings to the people of
China and congratulated them on their heroic resistance of the Japanese invaders.®*®

Pro-Chinese feelings did not remain confined to India alone. It had its impact
on the Indians living outside the country. This was revealed when the Chinese
workers refused to help in producing munitions for Japan in Malaya in the Japa¬
nese owned tin and iron mines, and left the mines and thereupon Indian workers

156

Mian Nationalism and Asia

were engaged. But at the request of the Indian National Congress, the Indian wor¬
kers also refused to work there, although this meant suffering to them.®®* To ex¬
press their resentment against the failure of the League of Nations to prevent Japa¬
nese imperialist advance in China, a Congress member moved a resolution in the
Central Legislative Assembly on April 15, 1939 calling for India’s withdrawal from
the League of Nations.®®®

India’s spontaneous and heartfelt sympathy and solidarity with China culminat¬
ed in Nehru’s visit to China in August, 1939. His visit to China was the greatest
single factor which more than all other friendly gestures had contributed to the
growing solidarity between India and China in the pre-Second World War period.
With the blessings of Mahatma Gandhi and Tagore.^NeJ>«LMentjo.Chifla. to conve y
the affection and sympathy of the people of India to the Chinese people and bring
back something of the courage and invincible optimism of the Chinese people and
their capacity to pull together when peril confronts them,®”® Rabindranath Tagore
felt pride that the new spirit of Asia would be represented through Nehru and best
traditions of Indian humanity would find their voice duriilg his contacts with the
people of China.®"’ Rajendra Prasad, the Congress President for the year 1939,
welcomed Nehru’s visit to China and said that Nehru was India’s unofficial ambas¬
sador to carry her greelings to the sister nation, and her best wishes for China’s
success in the heroic struggle.®"" Though he went to China in his personal capacity,
the visit had behind it, the goodwill of the whole country and the Congress.

Nehru was warmly received in China by all sections of people including
Generalissimo Chiang Kai Shck and Madame Chiang Kai Shek. Few Foreign visi¬
tors to China’s war time capital of Chungking, wrote S.T. Hsich, a contemporary
Chinese, had received such a welcome as that showered on Pt. Nehru. Several hours
before his arrival, six hundred representatives from one hundred and ninety three
Chinese public bodies turned out at the aerodrome under the blazing sun to wel¬
come him.®"* He met practically all the prominent leaders of China including
General Yeh Chien-Ying of the Eighth Route Army of the Communists.®*" He
wanted to go to the North-West of China with a view to sec the working of the
Indian Medical Mission but as a consequence of the outbreak of the Second World
War in Europe he had to cut short his tour and return to India.

During his short stay in China, Nehru in public speeches and statements, press
interviews and a special broadcast arranged for him at Chungking demonstrated
deep love and solidarity with the Chinese people. He conveyed to the Chinese
people and leaders India’s admiration for the heroic struggle against the Japanese
invaders. On all occasions he reminded the people of China of the long historical
tradition of friendship that united China and India expressed the hope that though
they were passing through shabby treatment at the hands of the imperialists they
w'ould definitely come out of muddy water in which they had been thrown by the
imperialists and a bright future was in store for them.®*’ In an interview in Chung¬
king Nehru pointed out that China and India were the nations of yesterday with
thousands of years of culture behind them but what was more significant was that
they are also nations of tomorrow, for they are preparing with the co-operation of
all the freedom loving people to establish a new WotW Qrd?r. A bright future
awaits our two peoples.®’®

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement {1930-1945)

157

Expressing his sympathy with the Chinese people with whom was felt a certain
community of suffering,®^® Nehru strongly condemned Japanese imperialist grips
over China and observed : “we have no ill-will against Japan, we harbour no ill-
will even today against her people. But the policy which Japan has pursued in
China is a policy which we detest. For long years past we have struggled for our
own freedom against a powerful imperialism, and we have become convinced that
there can be no true freedom till imperialism. Fascism and the aggressions that
further them are rooted out of the world”.®^^ In his address to the Chinese people
which was broadcasted from Chungking radio on August 30, 1939 Nehru emphasis¬
ed the need, desirability and importance of the Sino-Indian Co-operation for the
sake of the freedom of our dearly-loved countries, for Asia and the World.®*"
Speaking on another occasion, Nehru declared that China and India had a message
to the World and in this great task of delivering a message to the whole World
China and India had to co-operate for their own good as well as for the good of
the World. He further pointed out that the future world order would lose its signi¬
ficance unless it postulated the co-operation of a free China and a free India.®*®

Nehru was not satisfied with the composition and the working of the Kuomin-
tang party of China which was not a very democratic body.®” But his foggiest
notion of the Kuomintang did not deter him from having a very high estimate of
Chiang Kai Shek and Madame Chiang Kai Shek on whom he made several calls.
Paying tributes to Chiang Kai Shek, Nehru called him the ‘h elmsman of China s
boat of destiny, symbol of her unity and of her unconquerable determination to
resist aggression and to free herself”.®*®

Nehru's visit lasted for merely a few day.s nevertheless he returned from China
with a love for the country “excelled’', to quote Mahatma Gandhi, if at all by his
love of his own country.®*® He was himself overwhelmed by abundant goodwill
and hospitality he met with everywhere in China and he noted in the Chinese people
a deep urge for friendship with the Indians.®“*’ Nehru s desire to see India and
China united in close ties was fully reciprocated by the Chinese leaders. All the
time in China, Nehru wrote, he and his Chinese friends talked of the past and
thought of the bright promise of their future co-operation.®®' Summing up the
results of his visit to China he wrote in his Autobiography : “I returned to India as
an even greater admirer of China and the Chinese people than I had been previ¬
ously and I could not imagine that any adverse fate could break the spirit of these
ancient peoples. ’®®®

Nehru’s visit awakened a similar enthusiasm in the Chinese mind and gave tre-
mendous moral support to the Chinese people in their armed resistance against .Japa¬
nese territorial invasion.®®® Evaluating the impact of Nehru s visit on Sino-Indian
relations, the “North China Star”, an English daily of China, declared that Nehru’s
visit, just before the war, to China to see Generalissimo Chiang Kai Shek and
their long conversations in the limestone tunnels of Chungking had developed a
deeper understanding between these two men, who were the outstanding leaders of
Asia, and who both combined nationalist enthusiasm with a strong passion for real
international understanding.®®* Nehru’s visit brought the two countries closer to
each other and Indian nationalists began to anxiously watch the British policy in
the Far East and warned the British Government that il it continued the policy of

158

Indian Nationalism and Asia

appeasement towards Japan at the cost of China **lndia would react strongly.’*^^'^

India’s sympathy with China expressed by Nehru during his stay in China con¬
vinced the Chinese leaders of India's support in hours of trouble. Madam Sunyat
Sen expressed her intention to establish a branch of China Defence League in India
and sympathised with the Indian struggle for freedom which, she added, was also
the cause of China.Appreciating Nehru's visit to China and its influence on
Sino-Indian collaboration Chu Chia Hua of the Central Executive Committee of
the Kuomintang in a letter to Nehru outlined the measures the Chinese were going
to take for the promotion of Sino-Indian collaboration—an objective which was
highly stressed by Nehru during his visit to China and the measures included the
exchange of professors, students, visiting or tourist groups or of experts.^'^^

Leaders of Nationalist India wished the Chinese nation a success in the Sino-
Japanese hostilities and anything which could have an adverse effect was highly
resented. When the British Government closed the Burma Road which was the out¬
let for China to receive foreign assistance, Indian nationalists smelt a rat behind
this policy. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the president of the Indian National Con¬
gress for the year 1940, in a statement declared that the decision of the British
Government to close the Burraa-China Road was a matter which had serious signi¬
ficance for China, India, Burma and Britain because this road had been built at
enormous sacrifice by China and was one of the main arteries of traffic between
China and the outer World. The road had brought China and Burma and India
nearer to one another and their contacts had been developed by this road. He fur¬
ther declared that the people of India had received with grave concern the closure
of the Burma Road which was a severe assault on the growing contacts and a
flouting of Indian opinion which was essentially pro-Chinese. This move of the
British Government was in complete conflict with the foreign policy which the
Indian people sought to practice. It did not only violate the international usage and
the Sino-British treaties rather it was evidently meant to hamper China in her
struggle for freedom. *'We must therefore," concluded the Congress President,
"wholly disapprove of the action of the British Government in closing the Burma-
China Road".®-* In his article published in April, 1940, Nehru regarded the Sino-
Japanese war in the Far East as a tragic event and declared that there could be no
stable order or effective co-operation in the world if China and India were
ignored.®^®

The National Liberal Federation in December, 1940 appreciated China’s heroic
resistance against Japanese aggression and expressed the hope that China would
come out with flying colours in the trial of her patience.®*®

India's unbounded sympathy for China evoked a similar response in China
which also expressed its sympathy with Indian struggle for freedom. Expressing
their appreciation of the moral support the Indian National Congress had given to
China, Mao Tse Tung and Chu Teh, on behalf of the Eighth Route Army, declared,
"The great Indian people and the Chinese have a common destiny. We, the Indian
people and the Chinese combined, compose almost half of mankind. We are the
two peoples who have been suffering longest imperial oppression and slavery, and
we both have the glorious tradition of fighting for liberty and freedom. Our eman¬
cipation, the emancipation of the Indian people and the Chinese, will be the signal

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement {1930-1945)

159

of the emancipation of all the down>trodden and oppressedCheng Yin-Fun,
Executive Secretary of the China Branch of International Peace Compaign, Chung¬
king, in his letters to Nehru appreciated the latter’s unfailing sympathy and support
for China and pointed out that the whole of China had great sympathy for the
Indian people and the developments in India had always been followed with much
interest in China.

Referring to the past close cultural contacts between India and China, the
Chinese leader enthusiastically observed, *’Our mutual undertaking for national
liberation, will bring even closer the existing ties of friendship. We are earnestly
looking forward to the day when the Indians and the Chinese can work hand in
hand and shoulder to shoulder for the peace of the world.”®®-* Madame
Chiang Kai Shek in her letter dated September 10, 1940 expressed the anxiety and
interest with which she and Chiang Kai Shek had been watching the developments
in India and sent greetings to Indian people.-’®* Chinese sympathy for India became
more pronounced when all the top leaders of the Congress were remanded to Jails
on October 17, 1940 for having started a Civil Disobedience Movement at the call
of Mahatma Gandhi against the exploitation of Indian resources for fighting the
war which the Indians considered as an imperialist war. Madame Chiang Kai Shek
expressing her concern over the arrest of Nehru declared that “it was beyond des¬
cription to narrate the tremendous wave of agitation, your imprisonment has
brought about amongst my own people. So many who had so pinned their hopes in
British democracy are asking themselves whether they had mistaken imperialism for
liberalism”.’-’* It was also amazing that while the Japanese invasion was in progress
and the Chinese people were awefully busy in defending their country, the Nationa¬
list Government of China sent two missions to India to promote cultural links
between the two countries. One delegation was led by Tai Chi Tao and other was
headed by Dr. Koo, a member of the Chinese Ministry of Education. Mr. Tai
presented to the Indian National Congress the following message from Chiang Kai
Shek, ‘'May the Indian and Chinese people, entertain mutual affection, mutual
understanding, and mutual respect that will last to efernity”.*®® All this showed
plainly what value Chiang Kai Shek and other Chinese leaders attached to friendly
relations with India then a non-entity politically.

Even during the period of the British attempt to overpower the nationalist
leaders by putting them into Jail custody, Indian people viewed with concern the
war going on in the Far East. The Hindu dated July 8, 1941 asked the Western
democracies to back China because it was China that had helped to maintain the
balance of power in the Far East Mrs. Kamaladevi Chattopadhyaya in her
article entitled “My visit to Nanking” expressed her disapproval of the Japanese
war methods in China and movingly remarked, “No foreign power ever held a
conquered country so unrealistically as Japan holds China today”.’®^ Indian public
opinion saw danger inherent in the civil war going on in China and therefore urged
upon the Chinese people to forge a common front against imperialist Japan forget¬
ting their internal differences. Hie Hindu dated the January 21, 1941 cautioned the
Chinese against the internal dissentions and wrote that “nothing would serve
Japan’s interest than a split in the Chinese United Front”.*®* Writing on another
occasion the above daily declared that unless the internal situation changed China

160

Indian Nationalism and Asia

would be engaged simultaneously at two fronts—the home front and border front. To
save China from being swept away by the civil war, it was essential that the United
States, Britain and the U.S.S.R. should agree to respect the territorial integrity of
China and try to create mutual understanding between the Communists and the
Nationalists in China. It further warned the Chinese leaders that if the internal
conjSict in China was not ended soon, "it may lead to tragic ends on China’s epic
struggle for freedom”.'*'”'

After Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941 the World War
assumed a new dimension. The British Government in India released all the Con¬
gress leaders from confinement. Nehru in a statement lauded the struggle of the
Chinese people.**^® The Woiking Committee of the Indian National Congress held at
Bardoli in December, 1941 sent its greetings to the Chinese people and congratulat¬
ed them on their patience and admired their courage in having set up an example of
unparalleled heroism.®" Addressing the Congress meeting at Wardha in January,
1942, Mahatma Gandhi stated that the Indians and the Chinese were faced with a
similar catastrophe and expressed India’s solidarity with China.'®^®

In the history of Sino-Indian relations in the pre-independence era, the visit to
India by Chiang Kai Shek and Madame Chiang Kai Shek was a milestone. On the
insistence of Roosevelt.®*® Chiang K,ai Shek along with Madame Chiang made a
trip to India in February, 1942 when nationalist leaders were making ceaseless
efforts to get freedom and to noii-co-operate with the British Government unless the
aim was fulfilled. At that time the war situation had changed and the balance
leaned in favour of Japan in the Far East. The object of Chiang’s visit was to have
a personal exchange of views with the members of the Government in India and
with prominent men in India’s public life, in order to secure more effective united
efforts against aggression.***' The Statesman thus described the purpose of this visit,
"To know where India stands, how solid she is in support and, if not solid, how
she can become so, what potentiality and resources she can be counted on to deve¬
lop and contribute, what is the country’s morale—all these information is vital for
China”.®*® The visit took place with the object lo induce the Indian leaders to co¬
operate with the British Government which in the war was the ally of China for
which Indians felt spontaneous love and admiration.

The two distinguished leaders of China received warm ovation all over the
country and visited various places in India and met all those who mattered in the
circle of nationalist leaders. Welcoming the Chinese leaders, Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi
Pandit, the president of the All India Women’s Conference, expressed the hope that
this visit would go a long way in reviving the past close friendly links between India
and China. In her reply to the welcome address Madame Chiang also stressed the
close friendly contacts between India and China and advised the Indians not to be
enticed away by the Japanese slogan that they were coming to liberate the Indians
and urged the Indians to take lessons from the Japanese atrocities in Burma and
China.*"’ Talking to pressmen Madame Chiang declared that she was highly
impressed by India. She further hoped that her visit had intensified the spiritual
unity between India and China.®^’

Chiang Kai Shek wanted to see Gandhiji at Wardha but Churchill turned down
this request as the cabinet did not agree to it.®'** Despite this official displeasure

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement (1930‘1945)

161

private meeting did take place between Chiang Kai Shek and Mahatma Gandhi in
Calcutta on February 18, 1942®*“ and both the leaders talked for four and a half
hours.®®®

During their slay in India Chiang Kai Shek and Madame Chiang were given
warm ovation by the Indians belonging to various fields of national life. Needless
to say that the British Government wanted to capitalise on India’s natural sympa*
thy for China and therefore it arranged for the Chinese leaders* visit to India. Never¬
theless, both the dignitaries were treated with the utmost friendliness and courtesy
and all the political organisations welcomed Chiang's visit. The All India Nationalist
League at its meeting in New Delhi on February 26, 1942 characterised the visit
as '‘heralding a new link between India and China which are already connected
by ties of culture and civilisation from ancient times”.®®* It also assured the Chinese
people of India’s whole hearted support in their heroic resistance to the imperialist
greed of Japan and wished China a success in the struggle.®®® Addressing a public
meeting at Calcutta, Nehru appealed to the people of India to take inspiration from
China and to face bravely Japan which represented the worst forms of imperi¬
alism.®"*® The All Parties Leaders’Conference held in February, 1942 appreciated
the Chiang’s visit for having established cordial relations between India and China.®®*
M.R. Jayakar and Tej Bahadur Supru welcomed the visit and expressed their soli¬
darity with China.®®®

Convinced of India’s sympathy with China, Chiang Kai Shek in his farewell
address to the people of India, Championed the cause of Indian freedom and fran¬
kly stated, ”1 sincerely hope and confidently believe, that our ally. Great Britain,
without waiting for any demands on the part of the people of India, will as speedily
as possible, give them real political power so that they may be in a position to
develop their spiritual and material strength and thus realise that their participation
in the war is not merely an aid to the auti-aggression nations for securing victory,
but also a turning point in their struggle for India’s struggle”.®®® He further remind¬
ed his brethren, the people of India of the historic friendship between India and
China and declared that “at this most critical moment in the history of civilisation
our two peoples should exert themselves to the utmost in the cause of freedom for
all mankind, for only in a free world could the Chinese and the Indian people
obtain the freedom. Furthermore, should freedom be denied to either China or
India there could te no real peace in the World”.®”

Chiang Kai Shek tried to persuade the British authorities to concede the de¬
mands of the Indian National Congress, one of which, as then put forward, was the
recognition of India’s sovereign status and the formation of an Indian National
Government. The War Cabinet, however, frowned on such an intervention. Chur¬
chill wrote a letter to Chiang Kai Shek expressing the hope that the latter would
be so kind as not to press the matter contrary to the wishes of the Viceroy or the
King-Emperor.®®® The British Government did not want that Chiang Kai Shek
should openly champion the cause of Indian freedom and therefore disapproved of
Chiang’s policy towards India.

Though the Chiang’s visit could not solve the Indian deadlock and did not
convince the British authorities of the urgency of Indian freedom, yet the visit of
the Generalissimo and Madame Chiang Kai Shek to India, and the manner in which

162

Indian Nationalism and Asia

the Indian people welcomed them, have spun new threads of fellowship for ninety
crores of human beings, counting almost half the population of the world. ‘ India
and China might not have gained the immediate object desired by both of them.
But the events of February, 1942 will stand as a landmark in the history of the two
countries, and will influence World history and its future evolution.®®® The true
significance of the Chtang's visit to India was rightly stressed by Nehru in the
following words : “The bonds that tied India and China grew stronger, and so did
the desire to line up with China and other nations against the common adver>
sary.”®“”

India's immense sympathy for China aroused by Chiang's visit to India was
manifested on March 7,1942, the day on which China Day was observed with due
solemnity and enthusiasm all over Calcutta and suburbs. The celebration of China
Day was not confined to Bengal alone rather in every part of India, the people
organised meetings, speechifled on the occasion and reassured the Chinese of the
Indian solidarity in the fight against imperialism.®®^

Rapid advance made by the Japanese troops in South East Asia and the surren¬
der of Singapore and Rangoon to the Japanese on February, 15 and March 7, 1942
respectively exposed India to Japanese aggression which disturbed the Indian nation¬
alists who held the presence of the British in India an invitation to the Japanese
aggression and began to demand for early British withdrawal from India and to
criticise Japan for her militarist and imperialist policies. Addressing a public meet¬
ing at Calcutta on February 20, 1942, Nehru appealed to the people of India to
face bravely any aggressor whether it was Germany or Japan.®®- Swami Sahaja-
nanda Sarswati, President of the All India Kisan Sabha, urged the Indians to gird
their loins to meet Japanese aggression.®®® Rajendra Prasad in a statement on May
1, 1942 declared that Indians desired to end British imperialist domination but they
did not wish to invite Japan and install her as their overlord to oust Britain.®®'* In
course of a speech at a public meeting at Monghyr in Bihar, Rajendra Prasad
repudiated Japanese claim to liberate India and said that God should save Indians
from such friends because the fate of Korea and Manchuria at the hands of .lapan
was a beacon light of Japanese goodwill.®®® Speaking at a public meeting at Ajmer
on November 23, 1942, B.S, Moonje told the Indian people that if any one believed
that India could secure freedom as a result of Japanese invasion, he lived in a
fool’s paradise.®®® In a statement Nehru declared, “I consider it my duty to oppose
any foreign invasion of India. The news of Japanese bombing of the coastal areas
of India must stir the heart of every Indian. The Japanese assertion that they are
coming to India to set us free is absurd and totally false’’.®®^ On July 7, 1942 Raja-
gopalachari addressing a public meeting in Madras appealed to the people of India
to shoulder the task of defending the country from the Japanese.®®®

Keeping in view the imminent danger of Japanese aggression, Indian leaders
began to ask the British to withdraw from India Gandhi stressed the point that
the mere presence of Britain in India was the cause of the imminent danger of the
Japanese attack on India. Hence, for the safety of India. Gandhi desired that the
British should withdraw from India.®®® However, Indian leaders did not foreget the
Chinese interests. Writing in The Harijan, Gandhi reaffirmed his strong friendship
for China and declared that he was not indiflferent to China while formulating his

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement (1930-1945)

163

demand for British withdrawal from India. The only effective way to help China
was to free India so that she could whole-heartedly support the war efforts. When
asked whether his attitude would not harm the cause of China with which he pro¬
fessed friendship, Gandhi emphatically stated, “I remain the passionate friend of
China that I have always claimed to be, I know what loss of freedom means. There¬
fore I could not but be in sympathy with China which is my next door neighbour
in distress. And, if I believed in violence and if I could influence India, I would
put in motion every force at my command on behalf of China to save her liberty”.®’®
In a letter to Cbiang Kai Shek, Gandhi explained the reasons behind his demand
for British withdrawal and gave assurances of Indian’s sympathy to the Chinese
people. Declaring bis profound love for the Chinese people and his earnest desire
to see China and India united for their mutual advantage. Gandhi informed the
Chinese people that his demand for British withdrawal was not meant for weaken¬
ing India’s defence against the Japanese or embarrassing the Chinese in their stru¬
ggle. He would not purchase India’s freedom at the cost of China’s freedom and
desired India to play her rightful part in preventing the Japanese domination.
Appreciating the heroic Chinese resistance against the Japanese invaders Gandhi
assured the Chinese leader that whatever action he might recommend to the Indian
people would be governed by the consideration that it should not injure China or
encourage Japanese aggression in Cbina.®’^ Gandhi’s entire attitude towards China
was summed up in the remark, “India, free and independent, will play a prominent
part in defending China. India lying at the feet of Great Britain may mean China
lying at the feet of Japan’’.®’-

Gandhi’s demand for British withdrawal from India was highly misunderstood.
Rumours persisted about Gandhi’s sympathy towards Japan. The London Times
dated June 2 1942 wrote that those who sought the freedom of India knew in

their heart that Gandhi’s policy meant no freedom but enslavement to Japan.®’®
But Gandhi was not pro-Japanese. In an interview to Louis Fischer in the month of
June 1942 Gandhi agreed to the stationing of the troops of the United Nations in a
free India for he did not wish Japan or other Axis powers to win.®’* The Congress
Working Committee in July, 1942 gave approval to Gandhi’s demand for the
British withdrawal from India as a pre-condition to India’s support to the War
efforts of the Allies. As India had no desire to embarrass Britain or other Allied
powers in their prosecution of the war or to encourage a Japanese invasion of India
or further pressure on China, the Congress Committee agreed to the stationing of
the armed forces of the Allied Powers in India in order to ward off and resist the
Japanese aggression.®’®

Gandhi made his attitude known towards the Far East in his open letter “To
Every Japanese” written on July 18, 1942. He described the Japanese attack on
China as indefensible and criticised Japan’s efforts to dismember Asia and to pre¬
vent a World Federation. Giving a strong warning to the Japanese for their imperi¬
alistic adventures Gandhi however admitted that he had no ill feeling against Japan
and said that if he was allowed by Japanese to go to Japan he would risk even his
life to plead with them to desist from the wrong that they were doing to China. He
further warned Tokyo not to exploit the situation to invade India because the
Japanese would be sadly disillusioned if they believed that they would receive a

164

Indian Nationalism and Asia

willing welcome from India. Indians would not fail in resisting the Japanese with ail
the might that their country could muster.®’® Gandhi clearly repudiated the allega¬
tion that he was pro-Japanese and said, “1 would rather like to be shot than to
submit to Japanese or any other power”.®”

The All India Congress Committee, which passed the Quit India Resolution in
August, 1942, also expressed disapproval of Japan’s policy and lent support to
China. Sardar Patel warned his audience against putting any faith in the profes¬
sions of Japan about their good intensions regarding India. Speaking on the occa¬
sion Gandhiji stated that the coming of Japan would mean the end of China, and
perhaps of Russia too and declared that he would not wish to be the instrument of
Russia’s defeat or of China. If that happened, he said, he would hate himself.®’® In
a message to the Chinese people Gandhiji declared : ”Let China know that the
struggle is as much for her defence as it is for India’s liberation, for, in that libera¬
tion is involved her ability to give elfective assistance whether to China or to Russia
or even to Great Britain or America.”®’®

The Congress Committee in August, 1942 viewed with concern the deterioration
in the situation on the Chinese fronts and lauded the heroic resistance of the Chi¬
nese people against the mounting imperialism of Japan. India’s demand for British
withdrawal, the Committee further declared, was to enable India to meet the then
perilous situation to defend herself and help Russia and China in their hour of
distress and need.®®" Nehru sent a message to China, assuring the latter that India
would always be on the side of China in her hours of distress because with China
unfrec Indian freedom would be endangered and worth little purchase. He further
declared, ‘‘Whatever we do now, constrained by circumstances, is aimed at the
achievement of India's independence so that we may fight with all our strength and
will against the aggressor in India and China”.®***

The Quit India movement caused a grave concern in the official circle and the
Government took all steps to suppress the movement including the arrest of all
prominent Congress leaders. The news of the arrest of the Congress leaders shocked
the Chinese people and the Chinese Government reictcd unfavourably to the arrest
of Gandhiji and other Congress leaders. Dr. T.F. Tsiang, a Minister in the Chinese
Government, said, ‘‘Nationalism is a Psychological phenomenon which can not be
reckoned in terms of calculations and moreover, could not be suppressed with guns
or by imprisonment”.®**- Even before the Quit India Movement Chiang Kai Shek
had cabled American President Roosevelt on July 25, 1942 counselling the latter
that the wisest and most enlightened policy for Britain to pursue would be to restore
India her complete freedom.®®® But Winston Churchill threatened to withdraw from
the Sino-British treaty alliance if China continued to interfere in Indian affairs.®®'*
Thereupon Chiang Kai Shek kept silence on the Indian question.

After the Quit India movement, the Chinese newspapers carried headlined
articles on the Indian political situation deploring the aggravation of the tension.
The Official Central Daily News wrote, ‘‘We receive news of the arrest of Mr.
Gandhi, Pandit Nehru and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad with regret”.®®® The Chinese
Press comments on the Indian movement were very sympathetic and boldly criticised
the British Government for the arrests and declared that Indian emergency was
also their emergency.®®® The Ta Kuog Pao, the influential independent news-

165

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement {1930-1945)

paper which was most vehement in the denunciation of the British policy in
India,®®’ wrote in its editorial, “The news of Mahatma Gandhi's arrest and of the dis¬
turbances and blood-shed in India has been received here with great sorrow”.'*®® The
Ta Kong Pao further observed that India’s struggle for freedom was identical
with the war aims of the United Nations and the Chinese had no reason not to be
sympathetic to the Indian cause.®®® Dr. Sun Fo, President of the Legislative Yuan,
regretted the arrest of the Indian leaders and declared that the Chinese sympathy
was entirely with Indians in the struggle for independence.®'*' On August 12, 1942,
Tsiang Fe, the Director of the Chinese Political Department, stated that the Chinese
Government was a friend and ally of Britain, while the Chinese people had the
warmest friendship for the Indian people. He further urged the British Government
to find out a solution for Iodia.®’'‘ These statements of the Chinese leaders demon¬
strated the growing solidarity between India and China.

India’s sympathy for China continued even during those days vvhen the Con¬
gress leadership was in Jail and the country was in constant danger of Japanese
invasion. Seeing.the rapid .lapanese advance in China The Hindu urged for the
despatch of more planes to China because the future of tiie 1 ar La^t depended
entirely upon China’s ability to beat back the aggressor.®'- When Britain and
America declared in October, 1942 that they were ready to abandon all their privi¬
leges in China, The Hindu noted it with satisfaction that China had been accepted
as the mistress of her own house.®*'®

India’s contacts with China were strengthened more by Radha Krishnan’s
visit to China in March, 1944. Radha Krishnan was given warm reception by the
Chinese people. In China he stressed the need of a lasting alliance between the
Kuomintang and the Communist Party.®®* He also stated that if (he non-aggressive
nations of China and India would pull together in the years to come (hey would
contribute effectively to the rebuilding of the World on Saner foundations,®''"’

Indian nationalists were shocked to see the internal dissension mounting up in
China between the Nationalists and the Communists. As the war approached its
end, rift between the Kuomintang and the Communist widened more in scope.
This caused grave concern among the Indian leaders. Indians did not take side with
one party or the other in China and pleaded for conciliation K B. Vaidya, an
Indian long resident in China, alleged that even sections in India showed preferences
as between Nationalists and the Communists and stated that even the Indian
Medical Mission and its leader preferred to work with the Communist Army in
Sian and Yenan in Shensi instead of at Ichang or Kwangsi where the Nationalists
were fighting against the Japanese forces. The Mission was sent to Nationalist China
but it was allowed by the Chinese Medical and Red Cross authorities to work with
the Communists when its leader. Dr. M. Atal, showed definite preference to work
with the Eighth Route Army of the Communists. Chiang Kai Shek noticed this
discrimination made by the Indian Medical Mi.ssion. It was the reason that those
of the members who returned to India were not interviewed by Chiang Kai Shek on
their way back after a long period of their service to China, not even Dr. M. Atal,
the leader of the Mission, because no such interview was sought and the only
messages that they brought home from China to the Indian N.itional Congress
were from Mao Tse Tung and other Communist leaders.'®®®

166

Indian Notionalism and Asia

But this statement of K.B. Vaidya could not be taken as an authentic account
because all sections of the Chinese people appreciated the action of the Indian
National Congress in sending the Medical Mission to China. Furthermore, in his
message to Nehru in March, 1939, Shelly Wang of the Chinese Foreign Office at
Chungking and not belonging to the Communist Party, spoke very high of the
works done by the Indian Medical Mission.^"^ These facts suggested that in send¬
ing the Mission the Indians did not want to support the Communists against the
Nationalists in China. Indian Press urged the Chinese leaders to close their ranks
and to forget their differences to make China a strong and united nation. The Hindus¬
tan Times dated May 18, 1945,’’®* and The Hindu of November 2, 1945.“’®" made
repeated requests to the Chinese people to forget their differences and to live as a
single united nation. The Hindustan Times dated August 8, 1945 emphatically dec¬
lared “A united China is essential to peace as much as united India”.^°®

India’s interest in China became more intense with the release of the Congress
leaders in June, 1945. On June 25, 1945, Nehru in an interview to Paul Fang,
special correspondent of the Central Mews Agency, China, pointed out that during
his three years of imprisonment not a day passed when he did not think of China
and her gallant struggle. Expressing his goodwishes for China, he sent greetings to
the Chinese people and hoped that the friendship and co-operation of China and
India are not only necessary for them, but also for the peace and freedom of the
rest of the World.^®^ By July, 1945, it seemed that Japanese would surrender very
soon and China would get rid of the long protracted war she had been fighting
against the Japanese imperialism. Indians too felt a sense of relief and noted with
satisfaction the chances of war coming to an end. The Hindustan Times in its edito¬
rial captioned “China and Eight years of War” thanked the patience of the Chinese
people and Chiang Kai Shek’s unfailing courage and resourceful leadership that
China had survived.

Thus, during 1930 and 1945, Indian National Movement was drawn very close
to China and a new kind of relationship developed between the two neighbours of
Asia.

Japan, which had been very popular with Indian nationalist leaders, ran a low
estimation in Indian public in the fourth and fifth decades of the 20th century.
Japan began to be disliked for her imperialistic adventures in China and admiration
for Japan reached the lowest ebb when Japan over ran the whole of East Asia and
reached the borders of India. Nevertheless, there was a section of Indian people
which still had faith in Japan and which pinned up its hope of liberation of India
in the rise of Japan. When the majority in India condemned Japan for her policies
in China, the Hindu Mahasabha did not share the views of the Congress in the
condemnation of Japan. The General Secretary of the All India Hindu Mahasabha
asked the Premier and the people of Japan to believe that Hindu India was not with
the Congress in the latter’s condemnation of Japan.'”’* Even in the Congress circle
there were some leaders who did not favour the condemnation of Japanese activities
in the Far East. Among these leaders was Subhas Chandra Bose. When a Medical
Mission was organised to help China, Subhas Chandra Bose, who happened to be the
Congress President for the year 1938, did not approve of any step being taken by the
Congress which was anti-Japanese. Yet such was the feeling in the Congress and

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement {I930-I94S)

167

the country, wrote Nehru, that Subhas Chandra Bose did not oppose the despatch of-
Medical Mission to China or naany other manifestations of fascist aggression though
he was opposed to these manifestations of sympathy.^"* Subhas Chandra Bose thought
that the Second World War was a God sent opportunity to the Indian nationalists
to press for their demand for complete freedom.''"® He did not want that the Con¬
gress should give unwarranted criticisms against the Germans, the Italians or the
Japanese.'*"* By adopting such an attitude he wanted to suggest that the Congress
should tone down its utterances against the militarist activities of Italy, Germany
and Japan. Such an attitude was amply demonstrated by the fact that unlike Nehru’s
two presidential addresses, in April and December, 1936, which had preceded Bose’s,
the latter said nothing against the Governments of those countries or their
policies.*"’

Inspite of the severe criticism of Japanese policies some Indians still hoped that
Japan would correct herself. Japan's policy undermined the foundation of Asian
solidarity but the imposition that Asia was not for the Occident remained as power¬
ful a uniting force as ever. The condemnation of Japan as an aggressor did not
contradict this nation. Japan was regarded as a dcviationist engaged in unoriental
activities.'""' Even Rabindranath Tagore, who was very vocal in disapproving of
Japanese-activities in the Far East, believed that Japanese behaviour was borrowed
from the West and had not touched the people’s heart and hoped that an appeal to
the moral conscience of Asia would bring Japan back to the proper oriental path.'"’®

The depth of Japanese influence on Indian people could be illustrated by the
writings of RajaM ^endra Pratap ^- ^ grea t I nd i a n -re-^^hitu^y-patrio^
exi le in Jai^n ! IlVen^aged an ideal World Federation which was to organise the
'woddlnto Cultural Zones. The entire area from Japan to Tibet was to fall within
what he called the Golden Land, while India with the Near East was to make up
theJtryan Land. As late as February, I MLRala Mehandra Pratap sided with^Wang
Ching^Wi^ the Japanese sponsored ruIeL_of China, and declared, If £jwere_l^.
■Wang CSngTVelTTn^'asrarrceYono'yeVcom^^^^^ lead the_,

adrilinrstrafioh of the entire Golde n lan d. So Long the Golden Army is not orga-
luserRrdefenrniFGdraaTrM^^^ Japanese troops may be stationed at Tientsin,
Shanghai, Hongkong and Hainan Island. We should establish the Golden Federation
in our Golden land from Japan to Tibet and from Mongolia to Kwangtang.”*'"

Writing in October, 1940 in the Indian Social Reformer, J.M. Ganguli subscrib¬
ed to Japan’s Slogan of “Asia for the Asiatics” and declared, “as regards this
Monroe Doctrine, which America justifies on all grounds, including territorial
safety, if Japan enunciates similar doctrine for the East, America stakes a threaten¬
ing mailed fist at her. The status quo in the East must not be disturbed - America
says to Japan with an undisguised threat of armed opposition in her voice; which
means, in effect, that far off France can own extensive territories in Indo-China,
England can possess Hongkong and an empire in Australia and New Zealand, Hol¬
land can keep the East Indies, America can fly her flag over the Philippines, not
to mention almost every European power retaining concessions in China, but a non •
white country must not protest, or aspire to dominate even in its own neighbour¬
hood or think of extending it» political influence and territorial limits”. Khwaja
Ahmad Abbas also admitted in June, 1939 that the “fanatic and reactionary’* ^

168

Indian Nationalism and Asia

Hindus looked upon Japan, with her Buddhist populaAon, as a country whose reli¬
gion stemmed from Hinduism, and rejoiced that such a country was asserting her
power in the Far East. He further pointed out that “Hindu Communalist Organisa-
tions”'*** were in sympathy with Japan. Michael Edwardes also pointed out that
there were some sophisticated nationalist leaders who had genuine dislike for milita¬
rism of Japan but there was “an overwhelming raajority”^^* who were quite pre¬
pared to win freedom with the help of Japan.^*® Jawaharlal Nehru also noted with
consternation that though Japan was not liked, there was a feeling of satisfaction at
the collapse of old established European Colonial Powers before the armed strength
of an Asian power. Indians felt a sense of relief that Japan was giving a fatal blow
to the white supremacy in Asia.'"'* Actual pro-.lapanese sentiment, wrote Nehru,
was practically nil for no one wanted to change masters but he himself admitted
that there was a group which was indirectly pro* Japanese in the sense that it wanted
to exploit the opportunity offered by the Japanese invasion for Indian freedom and
those Indians were encouraged in this task by the broadcasts bemg made by Subbas
Chandra Bose who had escaped from India in 1941.

There was possibility of more and more collaborators with the Japanese, if
they saw India in the control of the Japanese invaders."" As a consequence of anti-
British and pro-.Iapancse sentiment, there was general satisfaction in India at the
initial reverses of the Allied powers in World War Second and in July 1942, the
Congress was constrained to note that the increasing anti British feeling of the
Indian people had tended to a growing satisfaction among them at the success of
Japanese arms.'"*’ Maulana Azad, in May, 1942, was disturbed to see the pro-Japa¬
nese feeling in India and wrote that the majority to the people were then convinced
that the British would lose the war and some seemed to welcome a .fapanese victory.
There was a great bitterness against the British which at times was so intense that
they did not think of the consequences of a Japanese conquest of India.""

Subhas Chandra Bore was the foremost among the Indian nationali.sts who favo¬
ured Japanese assistance for India's independence. This attitude and many other fac¬
tors led to the conflict between Subhas Chandra Bose and other Congress leaders
which ultimately resulted in Bose's fligh t to Germany in March, 1941 from where he
urged the Indian people not to compromisFwIfh BrilaTiTanff to continue their fight
to end the British domination.'^-'*

But the/exploits of Subhas Chandra Bose in Eastern Asia were more romantic
and significant than those in Germany. Subhas Chandra Bose's collaboration with
Japan formed an important phase of the Asian policy of the Indian National Move¬
ment During the war the Japanese did many things to win India's sympathy. Several
powerful radio transmetters were beamed exclusively at India '*-* In the years that
preceded the Second World War the Japanese Foreign office was dissatisfied with
the unfavourable Indian reaction to the Japanese action in China. But there were
some Japanese officials and statesmen who looked upon Subhas Chandra Bose as a
possible ally. It was this belief that prompted the Japanese Consul-General at Cal¬
cutta, ^ika 2 ;akijj[cMATit£jojroki^on_^^ sometimes after Bose’s arrival

» in Germany, that the Japanese should establish contact with Bose in Berlin and that
I arms should be sent to India secretly to strengthen the hands of his militant followers
I of the Forward Bloc, Within a few mopths, General Oshimo Hiroshi, the Japanese

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement {1930-194$)

169

ambassador in Berlin informed his Foreign office that he was in close contact with
Bose and that the latter was keen to come to the East where he thought he would be
more useful for India’s cause.^^^ Japan tried to win over India’s sympathy through
the help of Indians living in South East Asia. To know the real state of alTairs in India
Major Fujiwara Iwaichi, one of the officers of the 8th section of the Second Bureau of
the Imperial General Staff, was sent to Bangkok with five commissioned officers and
one Hindi speaking interpreter in October, 1941. Major Fujiwara’s contact with the
Indians in Thailand, particularly the leaders like Swami Satyananda Puri and Bawa
Pritam Singh, had encouraging results. The Imperial Conference held on November
15, 1941 to lake final decision on the Japan’s entry in the war, also favoured the
idea that steps should be taken to stimulate Indian independence movement and to
liberate her from British control.'’"** The Liason Conference of Japan held on Jan¬
uary 10, 1942 laid down that the Japanese immediate aim regarding India was only
to cut oflf her sea communications and to encourage her leaders to rise against
Britain.'*"^

Japa n’s policy , towards jndia_ t ook a ne w turn, jn December,. 1941 when the
British Indian Arrny surrendered in Malaya. Major Fujiwara met the Indian captain
'Mohan Singh and developed a strong liking for each other. It was Mohan Singh who
suggested that Subhas Chandra Bose should be brought to the East from Germany.
Fujiwara, who desired to establish a strong link with India and to utilise the situa¬
tion against the British, placed before his departmental head, Lt. Col. Ozaki, an
elaborate plan which suggested that Japan should clarify her policy tow'ards India,
help Bose to come to the East, assist the Indian nationalists in all possible ways to
achieve freedom and reorganise and strengthen the agencies doing liaison work with
the Indians Fujiwara’s plan was strengthened when fifty-five thousand Indian
soldiers surrendered to the Japanese army after the fall of Singapore in February,
1942, Major Fujiwara invited Indians and said, “England’s power is dwindling and
that is the opportunity for India to strike for independence*’. .lapan is prepared to
give all assistance to Indians to attain their independence’’.'*-® Fujiwara went to
Japan in the beginning of March, 1942 but to his utter surprise he found that his
home Government was not so enthusiastic about India and he himself was replaced
by Col. Iwakuro who did not share Fujiwara’s enthusiasm for India.**” .lapan’s
sympathy for India remained mostly limited and her attitude towards India was
neither clear nor committal. Japanese became irritated at the attitude of the Indian
delegates to the Sin gapora -Conf erence held in March, 194 2, who still looked to
their leaders at home for guidance.'*-*

Rash^Bihari Bose , an Indian revolutionary living in Tokyo, favoured Indo-
Japanese collaboration against the British. On his invitation a conference was held
from 28th to March 30, 1942 at Tokyo where it was decided to start an Indepen¬
dence Movement among the Indians in East Asia. It was also decided that military
action against India would be taken only by the Indian National Army and under
the commands of Indians together with such military, naval and air co-operation
that might be requested from the Japanese authorities by the Council of Action of
the Indian Independence League to be formed. The Conference decided to summon
a fully representative conference of Indians at Bangkok in June, 1942.'*- ' The Bang¬
kok Conference held in J\JineJL942 inaugurated the Indian Independence League

170

Indian Nationalism and Asia

vvith a definite aim to attain complete independence of India.^^** On September 1,
1942, the Indian National Army was formally organised and Mohan Singh became
the Coramander-in-Chief of the Army.”^ The works of the Indian Independence
League were hampered by the rift caused between the League and the Japanese
authorities on the question of the control of the Indian prisoners and civilians in
Japanese occupied territories. The rift widened in dimension in December 1942 when
Iwakuro made it clear that it was not possible for Japan to make any announce¬
ment regarding India except in company with her Axis partners.''®^ This rift bet¬
ween the Indian Independence League and Japan produced a crisi$ in December,
1942 when the Council of Action of the Indian Independence League refused to
allow the Indian National Army to be transferred to Burma before all outstanding
points had been clarified by the Japanese Government. Mohan Singh dissolved the
Indian National Army much against the wishes of Rash Bihari Bose and Ananda
Mohan Sahay.'*^® This audacity on the part of Mohan Singh and Niranjan Singh
Gill found them in Japanese custody.^®*

Despite these differences, the Japanese encouraged the Indian nationalist
leaders in their task of liberating their homeland. After the fall of Singapore ori
February 15, 1942, Japanese Premier Hideki Tohjo in his message to the Diet on
February 16, 1942, declared : “It is a golden opportunity for India having as she
does, several thousand years of history and" splendid cultural tradition to rid her¬
self of the ruthless despotism to Britain and participate in the construction of the
Greater East Asia Co prosperity Sphere. Japan expects that India will restore her
proper status as India for the Indians and she will not stint herself in extending
assistance to the patriotic efforts to the Indians”.'**® Addressing the plenary session
of the House of Peers and House of Representatives held on March 12, 1942, the
Japanese Premier Tohjo reiterated his earlier stand towards India and stated that
the time had come when the Indians could realise their long cherished desire to
make India for the Indians. It was a critical time when the Indians were to decide
whether they would stand up to share the glory of the construction of the Greater
East Co-prosperity Sphere as India for Indians or remain for ever as slaves under
American and British bonds.^*® The Japanese Premier expressed deep sympathy for
those Indians who were likely to suffer ravages of war because it was never the
idea of Japan to consider “the Indian people as enemy

Intense nationalist fervour in India compelled the British Government to send
Cripps Mission in March, 1942 to India to suggest measures for the solution of
Indian problems. But the Cripps Mission failed in its objectives. The rejection of
the Cripps proposals by the Indians was regarded by Premier Tohjo of Japan as
India's spiritual inde e gndence from Britain. In a speech to the 80th session of Diet
on May 2 T, I9427 the Japanese Premier declared that the failure of the Cripps
Mission was the first historic step towards Indian independence. The Japanese
Premier expressed the hope that the Indian people would rise with an intrepid
spirit, expel the Anglo-American forces and their influence completely from India
and thereby restore the independence of their country.®** The Japanese Foreign
Minister Shighenori Togo also urged the Indians to rise courageously in order to
win India’s emancipation.®** Other sections of people also declared their sympathy
for India’s freedom and encouraged the Indians to strike againsf the British rulers.

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement {1930'1945)

171

Sbighetomo Sayegusa in an article on "India’s Role in Totalitarian World" empha¬
tically asserted the need for proper information to be given to the Indians that
Japan entertained sincere sympathy for the cause of Indian independence and
added that the Japanese nation as a whole was prepared to assist the nationalist
leaders in India in their fight for freedom. Sympathising with the Indian national
aspirations he declared that the British would not grant freedom to Indians unless
the latter organised themselves.*’® Another Japanese, Kat Sugi Inahara, in his arti¬
cle entitled "India’s struggle for Freedom" written in May, 1942 condemned the
British Rule in India. It was surprising to find that the writer paid tributes to
Gandhi and Nehru despite their anti-Japanese attitude.*** Writing in September,
1942 Katsugi Inahara viewed the Quit India Movement as a part of world uphea-
vel in the international conflict and stated that the uprising was a new attempt for
national liberation in India.**- Another contemporary Japanese, Naokichi Tanaka,
offered .Japan’s unequivocal support to the Indian struggle for independence. In his
article captioned Albion in India, Inahara justified India’s demand for complete
independence from Britain Emphasising the cultural intimacy between India and
Japan and acknowledging the cultural and philosophic assistance, Japan had receiv¬
ed from India in the past, Inahara pointed out that Japan was mentally and
emotionally so close to India that to Japan the sorrow of India affects as its own

sorrow.*** Addressing the eighty-second session of the Diet on June 16, 1943, the
Japanese Premier Tohjo expressed sympathy with India passing through terrible
ordeal in the process of attaining her complete independence and promised that
Japan is firmly resolved to exhaust all means in order to help expel and eliminate
from India Anglo-Saxon influence which are the enemy of the Indian people and
enable India to attain full independence in true sense ol the terra.***

India’s collaboration with Japan widened in scope with Bose’s arrival in the East
to lead the Indian National Army aiming at the complete elimination of British
influence from the Soil of India. B o -s e arr ived in Japan tow a rds the middls. ,o f.Ju ne ,
15.43 from where he proceeded to Singapore to take the leadership of the Indian
Independence Movement. The Indian Independence Movement under the leadership
of Subhas Chandra Bose was not only the beginning of a new chapter in the his¬
tory of India’s struggle for freedom but also marked a new turn in Japanese attitude
towards Indian Nationalism The provisional Government of Azad Hind was for¬
med on Octol ^21.1943 a nd Subhas Chandra Bose, popularly known as Netaji, took
the Oath of allegiance to India and other members of the Government also follow¬
ed him. The Japanese Government accorded recognition to it and treated it as an
independent and free-Government and pledged to extend it all possible assistant.

On October 20, 1943. Netaji went to Tokyo where he attended the Greater East
Asia Conference in the first week of November, 1943. The Japanese Emperor accord¬
ed him with all honours due to the Head of a state. The Japanese Premier anno- ^
uncedon November 6, 1943 that as a mark of appreciation of the Provisional
Government of India, Japan had decided to handover the Andaman and Nicobar
Islands to the Provisional Government of Azad Hind Thus the Provisional

Government acquired its first say on a territory in Free India. .

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and his followers expressed desire to paUicipate in
the Japanese offensive against British India. But Japanese Field Marshall Count

172

Indian Nationalism and Asia

Terauchi, the Commander of the Japanese Forces in South East Asia, did not want
to include the Indian National Army in the group that was to proceed towards India.
He further thought that Subhas Chandra Bose should assist the Japanese army in
liberating India by enlisting the goodwill of the Indian people and should do only the
espionage works for the Japanese army. Bose did not want to do only the espionage
work and after his resistance Japanese consented to the Indian National Army’s
participation in the compaign*'*’ and some members of the Azad Hind Fauj were
attached to the different units of the Japanese army as irregulars.

In May, 1944 the Indian National Army took possession of the British post on
the Indian side situated at Movyxlok which created panic in the British forces. Sol¬
diers of the Azad Hind Fauj laid themselves flat on the ground and kissed the
sacred soil of their motherland which they had set out to liberate. Furthermore,
when the Japanese forces decided to withdraw from Mowdok and advised the Azad
Hind Fauj commander to retreat because they were faced with grim difliculties
caused by troubles in supply as well as impending counter-attack of the British
forces, the olhcers of the I N.A. unanimously refused to do so saying that the
“Japanese could retreat because Tokyo lies that way; our goal the Red Fort, Delhi
lies ahead of us. We have orders to go to Delhi. There is no going back for us’’.^^”
Thereupon a company of troops under c aptain JSiii aj Mai was le ft at Mowdok. The
Japanese army officers were so much impressed by the heroic and patriotic zeal of
the I N A. men that some Japanese troops, for the first time in the history of Japa¬
nese army were placed under the command of a foreign officer, Suraj Mal.'*'^“

The Indian National Army unfurled its flag on the top of the hills at Kohima
in Assam and the Japanese forces made attempts to capture Iraphal.''®^ But under
the exigencies of the situation the balance went in favour of the British and the
British counter-offensive attempts made in 1944-45 forced the Japanese to retreat.
With the retreat of Japan also came the tragic end of jthe attempts made by the
Indian National Army to liberate India. Seeing through his own naked eyes the
tragic end of his attempts to liberate his motherland with Japanese collaboration,

^ ly . for Toky o. The latter history of this great

Indian freedom fighter had been one of the mysteries.

Though the ambitious plan of Netaji and I N.A. to liberate India through
Japanese help collapsed but the revolutionary spirit generated by the I.N.A. and its
Netaji forced the British to think that India could no longer be held in subjection

The heroic exploits of Netaji and the Azad Hind Fauj and the Japanese collabo*
ration with this revolutionary India enterprise to liberate India from British domina¬
tion formed a brilliant chapter in history of Indo-Japanese collaboration. During the
war, years the Americans and British statesmen deemed Netaji to be a puppet or a
Quisling but he was not so to the Indians and the men in the Indian National Army
were first and foremost Indian patriots and were for Japan only to the extent that
Japan was for India. '’’’- Bose and his supporters became in India symbols of a United
Asia fighting for freedomSubhas Chandra Bose was out and out a nationalist
and he wanted to get .Tapanese assistance to that extent only which could have helped
him in liberating India. He emphatically stated : “Any liberation of India secured
through Japanese sacrifices is worse than slavery.'*®' The Working Committee of the
Indian National Congress had disapproved of the policies of Subhas Chandra Bose as

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement {1930-1945)

173

early as 1941, but the same Congress and Nehru in I94S certified that the members
of the I N A. were motivated by a “passion for freedom of their country, however
misguided”The Congress appealed to the British authorities not to punish the
members of the I N. A. who were teing put to trial by the British authorities in
India. Popular agitation and strong public opinion and a wave of excitement
throughout the country forced the British authorities to leave unpunished the mem¬
bers of the I. N. A. who, according to the Indian nationalists, were brave patriots,
had fought for the independence of India. The Congress constituted a committee of
the eminent lawyers of India to defend the l.N.A. members. Bhulabhai Desai, the
Chief Defence Counsel and a prominent Congress Leader, openly asserted, “Legal
allegiance can not be a matter of perpetuity. If it is so, no subject race will ever
attain freedom”.'*"* When the I.N..A. men were put on trial, popular and widespread
demonstrations were held from Calcutta to Lahore and Bombay, and from Lucknow
to Madura, occasionally accompanied by violence in support of the demand to
release the T.N.A. men and sometimes police had to resort to firing to crush the
popular enthusiasm and violence of the supporters of the l.N.A Even the Muslim
League took up the defence of the accused personnel of the band of patriotic heroes
who had fought for the liberation of their motherland from the Shackles of the Britiih
domination.^'* Thus, the whole nation stood for the I.N A. and regarded the attempts
made by the Azad Hind Fauj as War of independence against alien rule.

It would be proper to analyse the Japanese motives behind her support to the
I N A. and her proclamation in support of Indian independence. Japanese announce¬
ments were more of a tactical move and were dictated by strategic considerations.
A.J. Barker wrote that even in 1944, when the Japanese army was ordered into
India it was with limited objective of securing strategic areas near Imphal and in
the North East India for the defence of Burma, another auxiliary objective being
the disruption of the air-rputes between India and Chungking. F.C Jones held
the view that Japan did not actually want to liberate Asia What the Japanese really
wanted was the consent of the Western Maritime Powers to their hegemony in East
Asia and only when it was clear that this would not be assented by the Maritime
Powers that the Pan-Asiatic note became dominant in Japanese policies.

Undoubtedly, the real intentions of the Japanese were something more than
what seemed to be on the surface. Even the Indians felt that the .lapanese announce¬
ments formed the part of Japanese strategy to win over the Indians on their side
against the Allied Powers and Japanese sympathy for India was part of their tactical
move but it was extremely effective in stimulating Indian national sentiment and a
sense of indebtedness to Japan.*®* For India, long under the spell of pan-Asian
propaganda, and her national movement passing through a period of attrition in its
struggle against British imperialism, Japan's slogan ol "India for the Indians" what¬
ever might be its source, had an appeal.**"

Furthermore, informed public opinion in India felt concern over the fate of
Japan in the post-Second World War period. Even when the war was going on, the
Institute of Pacific Relations held a conference in January, 1945 at Virginia in
America to discuss the shape of the World Order in post war period and the ques¬
tion of treatment to be given to Japan. H.N. Kunzru, Indian delegate to the con¬
ference, declared, “we must not adopt an overharsh attitude towards the Japanese

174

Indian NationoUm and Asia

people. The way to guard against another Japanese attack is to have a strong India
and China”.^®“ A group of specialists from Western countries favoured the complete
military and economic disarmament of Japan and the establishment of a collabora¬
tionist regent to take the place of Emperor Hirohito without completely abolishing
the Emperor’s constitution of 1896. But the Indian delegation, moved by an Asian
sentiment, advocated Very mild peace terms for Japan*'^^ and insisted that the
Japanese should be given economic, political and cultural equality with all peoples
throughout the Far East.^”^ Speaking at the conference, Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi Pandit,
an outstanding Indian Leader, opposed the removal of the Japanese Emperor by the
Western powers and stated that the Japanese nation should not be humiliated and
should be left to decide its internal problems in the manner it thought fit for the
nation.''®®

All these expressions and sentiments confirmed that India’s solidarity with
Japan had suffered little by Japan’s imperialistic adventures. The condemnation of
Japanese policies would have remained less vocal if the danger of Japanese
invasion on India had not been imminent. India’s disapproval of the Japanese
policies could not afford to destroy the delicate but indivisible links which combined
the hearts of the two peoples of Asia. Furthermore, the solicitude shown by Indian
leaders for the fate of Japan in the post-war world made it crystal clear that the
basic solidarity of India with Japan had suffered little by Japan’s temporary betrayal
of the Oriental path.

India and Regional Integration In Asia

During the period from 1930 to 1945 one of the main planks of the Indian
attempts for developing close contacts with Asian countries was the move for regio¬
nal integration in Asia or for some sort of Asiatic Federation. Numerous schemes
for Asiatic Federation were envisaged by the nationalist leaders. The Indian National
Congress in 1928 directed its Working Committee to correspond with the leaders
of other Asian countries and to take necessary steps to summon in India in 1930,
the first session of a Pan-Asiatic Federation in which India should be the leader of
a renascent Asia.®®’ But this Pan-Asiatic Conference could not be held in India in
1930 for by that time the Congress became deeply engrossed in internal problems.
Mass Civil Disobedience, Meerut Conspiracy Case, Round Table Conference and
the all absorbing pre-occupations of the Congress did not allow India to see to her
friends in East.

Nevertheless, the idea of an Asiatic Federation remained a living part of Indian
Nationalist Thought. To give a practical shape to it, the All India Women's Con¬
ference convened the first All Asian Women’s Conference in January 1931. The
All Asian Women’s Conference held at Lahore marked a new turn in India’s attempts
for Asian solidarity. Explaining the desirability of this Conference, Lakshmibai
G. Rajwade, the Honorary Secretary of the Conference remarked, “Feeling the
necessity of establishing a closer contact between the various Asian countries for the
purpose of bringing about a keener realisation of their cultural unity, the organisers
of the Conference considered that as a first step they should endeavour to bring the
women of the different countries of Asia together, it being their belief that women
were fundamental, custodians of the cultural life of a nation”.®®® A Bulletin issued
in November, 1930 defined the objectives of the Conference which were to promote

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement (1930-1945) 175

the consciousness of unity amongst the women of Asia as members of a common
Oriental Culture, to take stock of the qualities of Oriental Civilisation so as to
preserve them for national and world service, to review and seek remedies for the
defects apparent in Oriental Civilisation, to shift what was appropriate for Asia
from the occidental influences, to strengthen one another by exchange of data and
experience concerning women’s conditions in there respective countries of Asia and
to promote world peace.'**"

On the opening day the Conference was presided over by Lady Bandarnaike
of Ceylon as Mrs Sarojini Naidu, who was to preside over the session, was in
Jail.*’** Ceylon, Burma, Persia, Japan and Afghanistan sent their delegates to this
Conference. The Conference received messages of greetings and goodwill from Syria,
Indonesia and Japan. Madame Nasib Abed Beyhun of Syria, congratulated Indian
women for their initiative in the summoning of the Conference. The Women
Association of Indonesia declared that the Women of Asia welcomed the project of
the Indian Women to bring together the scattered communities of Asia and the
Oriental Culture for the service of Asia and the World.'”- Miss Taki Fujia, Corres¬
pondence Secretary, Japan Women’s Committee for International Affairs, expressed
gratitude to the Women of India for taking the initiative in convening this con¬
ference and emphatically stated that it was the opportune moment when the women
of Asia should make a determined effort to understand one another and work
together.'"*

The initiative taken by the Indian Women to bring the Asiatic Women into
one bond was highly appreciated by Rabindranath Tagore and Sardar Jogendra
Singh, Minister of Agriculture of Punjab. The latter regarded the Conference as the
symbol of the reawakening of the Asian Women and as an unparalleled movement
in the history of the world. He viewed it with satisfaction that the women of Asia
were taking control of the new forces at start with a view to inspire and guide the
new awakening and bring harmony to the countries of the East which might had
dispersed their powers without using them for common good.^^'*

The Conference discussed the various problems : social, economic, spiritual,
political and educational, Several suggestions were put forward to improve the lot
of women folk in Asia and to remove the inherent defects in the Asian societies
and culture. The conference urged the necessity of retaining the high spiritual con¬
sciousness which had been the fundamental characteristic of the people of Asia
throughout their history and desired that the Women of Asia should maintain that
high standard uninfluenced by the materialist trends of modern times.'*^* The Con¬
ference resolved that another Asian conference should be summoned at the end of
two or three years and a Secretary be appointed and a small committee selected to
carry on this work till the time, particularly investigating the possibilities of co¬
operating with the Oriental Women’s Congress to be held in Teheran in 1933, and
if this was not possible, to correspond with other countries as regards choice of the
place for the next Conference to be held after a minimum period of two years. The
Conference also decided to publish a full report of the Conference and to establish
an Asian Academy for collection of information concerning the arts and other
cultural subjects and sciences. Dr. Muthu Lakshmi Reddi of India was appointed
as the Liaison Officer of the Asian Women’s Conference to establish contacts with

176

Indian Nationalism and Asia

the League of Nations.*’®

Though the Conference had no political purposes, and the Asiatic Federation
could not emerge from the conference as no such conference as proposed at the
first Conference was summoned in future, and no perma’nent organisation was
created to do the woik of promoting solidarity among the nations of Asia, never¬
theless the conference went much further in the way of consolidating the mutual
collaboration among the nations of Asia, particularly among the Women of Asia.
The very meeting of the conference was a great thing in itself and it was the small
beginning of a big mission. Mrs. A K. Raft, moving the vote of thanks, regarded
the conference a success and stated, “we have met together, have exchanged our
ideas on different subjects and have discussed the various problems relating to our
various countries. We have found that although separated by strong physical bar¬
riers and kept apart by various social and political reasons yet we all belong to one
great family, have our common culture, and one civilisation.”*”

Indian attempts to form an Asiatic Federation were strengthened by India’s
participation in Asiatic conferences summoned for this purpose. One such conference,
which made attempts to institutionalise the dream of Asiatic Federation, and in
which India played a determining role, was the Pa^ojAs latic Labour Confer ence held
at Colombo, jCeylon_in__May_1934. Though the conference was described as an
Asiatinfonference yel it had no coni^ete Asian Complex in the sense that only
Japan, India and Ceylon participated in the conference. T. Kikukawa, K. Sujuki,
E. Jwang, E. Sujuki and 1. Aisawa represented Japan on the conference. India was
represented by Jamnadas Mehta, K.M. Joshi, and S.C. Joshi. Ceylonese representa¬
tives at the conference included A.E. Goonesinha, S.W. Oassenaike, Dr. C.J.C.
Desilva, and Kanga Sundaram.*’"

This Pan-Asiatic Labour Conference passed a number of resolutions which view¬
ed Asian problems in Asian context and emphasised the need of a concerted action
by the Asiatic nations to promote the interests of the workers and the labourers of
Asia. The conference viewed with alarm the economic condition and distress of the
industrial workers in Asia and held the financial exchange and fiscal policies of the
Governments responsible for the miserable lot of the workers in Asia and protested
against all economies in the name of nationalisation The conference expressed the
opinion that the grant of political freedom and the right of self-determination to
such of the countries of Asia as were under foreign domination was essential in the
inlctcsts of international understanding and world peace. Representing the Asian
sentiment of anguish at the imperialist policies of the Western powers, the con¬
ference opposed the use of Ordinances and repressive legislation for the suppression
of political and civil liberties of the people of India and elsewhere. It requested the
International Labour Organisation to make the arrangements for the direct represen¬
tation of the Colonies and dependencies to make International Labour Conference
truly international. It further urged the International Labour Organisation to expe¬
dite the holding of an Asiatic Labour Conference and to provide a minimum of
two seats to Asiatic Labour on the governing body of the I. L.O. It called upon all
national labour organisations in Asia to exchange fraternal delegates from other
Asiatic countries to their annual conference and assured the International Federation
of Trade Union of its full co-operation with it in all matters of common interest.*”

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement 0930-1945)

177

India played an important role in this gathering of Asian labour leaders to
foment a common bond of friendship. The importance of India was well recognised
at the oonference and an Indian was included as one of three Vice-Presidents, other
two being Chinese and Ceylonese. Of the two secretaries one was to be from Japan
and the other from India. Attaching a remarkable status to Indian labour movement
and the role of Indian labourers in Asia, the conference decided to held its next
session in India.^^*^

This Pan-Asiatic Labour Conference demonstrated the rising spirit of the East
making all attempts to revive the vitality of Asia and to exempt Asia from the
exploitation of the West. One feature of the conference was that it did not confine
to labour problems only. It also asked for political and civil liberties of those
Asiatic people who were under alien domination. Jamnadas Mehta, the leader of
the Indian delegation to the conference, asked the delegates at the conference not
to be mindful of the small beginning of the conference and expressed the hope that
although the beginning “is small as we all recognise it, there rises before my eyes
the vision of the future of the Asiatic Labour Conference composed of delegates
representing the continent of Asia, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Arabia, Persia, Afghanis¬
tan, India, China, Japan and many others. In fact, when the Congress is more fully
developed half of the World will sit round it and its deliberations will influence all
world organisations”.T. Kikukawa, a Japanese delegate, declared, “To day
Japan unites with India in forming a social collaboration for the realisation of Jus¬
tice. It is ray hearty prayer that we will continue to collaborate for the upliftnient
of the conditions of labour throughout Asia."^**'

This Pan-Asiatic Labour Conference did not aim at the creation of a movement
against the labour movements of the West. Deploring the inadequate representa¬
tion of Asia at the International Labour Conference, K.M. Joshi, the Indian dele¬
gate, frankly declared : “Pan-Asiatic Labour Congress was not meant to be separate
from or antagonistic to the labour movements in other parts of the World. They
realised that the strength of the workers lay in their solidarity.”'"*"

The Pan-Asiatic Labour Conference, though not fully Asian in character, left
an indelible mark on the growing consciousness of fellow-feeling among the Asian
nations and the role India played at the conference was note-worthy in the sense
that it was eager to develop close contracts with other Asian nations and to foster
a workable union of the Asian countries to remove some of the disabilities of the
Asian people.

Even during the war years of 1939-45 when Indian nationalists were deeply
engrossed in their domestic afiairs, the scheme of Asiatic Federation exercised its
influence on their minds. They worked out their arrangements in conformity with
the spirit of the times on an “optimistic and slightly idealistic plane” and usually
contemplated an Asian Federation for the purpose of promoting freedom and wel¬
fare of the nations of Asia/®* Nehru, in the course of a long article under the
caption “The Parting of the Ways” explained that Indians did not want to be
bound down to a group of nations which had exploited and dominated them.
Indians wanted to be completely free with no reservations or exceptions, except
such as the Indians themselves accepted, in common with others, in order to foster
a Federation of Nations or a new World Order. If this new World Order or Fede-

178

Indian Nationalism and Asia

ration did not materialise in the near future, Nehru added, they would like to be
closely associated in a Federation with their neighbours such as China, Burma,
Ceylon, Afghanistan and Persia.^^^ The All India Congress Committee in August,
1942 envisaged an ambitious plan for the formation of a World Federation based
on the equality and freedom of all dependent nations. But behind this craze for World
Federation was the inherent idea of Asiatic organisation. The Congress Committee
declared that the freedom of India must be the symbol of and prelude to the freedom
of all other Asiatic nations under foreign domination.^^^

Indian Muslims and their Muslim League did not favour the formation of an
all Asian Federation. Their eyes were fixed on the politics of the Middle Eastern
Countries. Some of the leaders of the Muslim League hoped for a union of Muslim
nations of Asia. Chowdhury Kahliq-uz-Zamman, a veteran Muslim League leader,
envisaged a plan of the union of Islamic countries of Asia in which Muslim India
was also to be included.^^*^ Similar sentiments were expressed by Jinnah in his
address to the Punjab Muslim Student’s Federation held at Lahore on March 18,

1944 188

The Hindus organised under the banner of the Hindu Mahasabha bad in their
minds the desire to work out a federation of all those nations of Asia which believed
in Hindu or Buddhist religion. The militant wing of the Hindu Mahasabha want¬
ed to create a Pan-Buddhistic Bloc composed of Japan, India, Tibet, Thailand,
Ceylon, Combodia, Java, China and Burma.*®®

Whatever might had been the motives behind these two trends of thinking for
the formation of an Asiatic Federation, these schemes added strength to the
Indians’ desire to foster solidarity amongst the nations of Asia. Besides these
moves based on religious sentiments and affiliations there was a similar movement
based on geographical, political and strategic interests and needs which aimed at
the creation of an Asiatic Federation or some sort of Union of Asia. Nehru, who had
been a passionate advocate of regional integration in Asia, wrote in 1944 : “Condi¬
tions and problems differ greatly in the various countries of Asia, but throughout
this vast area, in China and India, in South East Asia, in Western Asia and the
Arab World, run common threads of sentiment and invisible links which hold them
together.’’*®® Speaking in Kashmir in August 1945, Nehru said : “Small states of the
world of tommorow have no future in store and they are sure to be reduced to the
status of satellite states. I stand for a South Asia Federation of India, Iran, Iraq,
Afghanistan and Burma.’’*®*

Some more suggestions were made by Indian scholars for the evolution of an
Asiatic Federation. Krishnalal Shridharani in his book entitled *'Warning to the
West'\ first published in 1942 and then in 1944, talked of an Asiatic Federation to
counteract European arrogance and to promote Asian Welfare. To Shridharani,
the cry for a continental bloc of Asiatic peoples and their governments was a defence
mechanism and was largely an answer to the arrogant West which was still unwill¬
ing to concede the right to self-determination to the Asiatic people.**® Among the
Indians who discussed the problem of Asiatic Federation from a more realistic and
nationalistic angle, K.M. Panikkar was the foremost. In his book entitled **The
Future of South East Asia ’, Panikkar advocated a regional organisation comprising
India and South East Asia, in which the responsibility for defence was to fall on

Consolidation of the Indian NationaJism Movement (J9S0-1945)

India and Indonesia.

Thus, the period from 1930 to 1945 marked the consolidation of the movement
for Asian Solidarity in India. During this period, all shades of opinions in India
were deeply moved by an urge to develop friendly relations and close collaboration
with the nations of Asia most of which were comrades-in-boiidage fighting for
independence from Whi e Supremacy.

180

Indian Nationalism and Asia

REFERENCES

^Tendulkar, Mahatma, Life of Mohm Das Karamchand Gandhi, vol. II, pp. 427-505.
‘Christine Dobbin, (ed), op. cif, pp. 99-100.

'Pattabhi Sitaramayya, op. ctt; vol. 1, p. 365.

•D. Singh (ed), Famtus Letters and Ultimatums to the British Government, (1944), p. 20.
mid.,pp. 20-29.

•S. Gopai, The Ficeroyalty of Lord Irwin 1926-31, (1931), p. 70.

’Tendulkar, op. cit; vol. II, pp. 25>26.

*C.H. Philips (ed). The Evolution of India and Pakistan, 1858-1947, op. cit: pp. 241-42.

•J.L. Nehru, Autobiography, p. 259.

^“rendulkar, op. cif, Vol. Ill, pp. 66-164.

“Pattabhi Sitaramayya, op, cit; Vol. I, pp. 516-17.
i®J.L. Nehru, Autobiography, p. 327.

WA.C. Banerjee, Indian Constitutional Documents 1757-1939, (1948), Vol. Ill, pp. 200-03.
w/ 6 /rf., pp. 204-05.

ispattabhi Sitaramayya op. cit; Vol. I, pp. 562-63.

‘‘Christine Dobbin, op. cit; pp. 119-21.

^’’Ibid.

“J.L. Nehru, India and the World, (1936), p. 86 .

“B.N. Pandey, op. ctt; p. 141.

*0 Return Showir^ the Results of Elections in India, 1937, Cmd. 5589.

‘‘Viscount Templewood, Nine Troubled Years, (1954), p. 52.

“Sir Bijoy Prasad Singh Roy, Parliamentary Government in India, (1943), pp. 366-67.

z»r/ic Statesman, Calcutta, January 7, 1937.

i*Returns showing the Results of Elections in India, 1937, Cmd, 5589.

s^Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, op. cit; pp. 160-62.

“Sir Harry Haig, The United Provinces and the New Constitution; The Asiatic Review
Vol. XXXVI, No. 127, pp. 428-29.

“R. Coupland, The Indian Problem, Report on the Constitutional Problem in India, Part II
(1944), p. 183.

^^Congress and War Crisis, (Allahabad), pp. 14-25.

“TAe Indian Annual Register, 1939, Vol. II, p. 70.

>*‘Congress and War Crisis, up. cit; pp. 40-50
^Hbid., p. 58.

pp. 65-67.

“Cited tn B.N. Pandey, op. cit; p. 150.

“Jamil-ud-Din Ahmand, Speeches and Writings ofJinnah, Vol. 1, p. 98.

“V.P. Menon, The Transfer of Power in India, (1957), p. 72.

“Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada (ed). Leaders' Correspondence with Jinnah, (1944), p. 147.
•’Jamil-ud-Din Ahmad, op, cit; p. 138.

“C-H. Philips (ed), op. cit; pp. 354-55.

3*K..K. Datta, Renaissance, Nationalism and Social Changes in Modern India, p. 78.
toQongress Bulletin, April 12,1940.

*iR. Coupland, op. cit; Part II. pp. 333-35.

**J.L. Nehru, The Unity of India, p. 379 . ’

*^Congress Bulletin, September 7, 1940.

“Congress Bulletin, January 9,1942-
“V.P- Menon, op. at, p. 98.

“R. Coupland, op. cit; Part II, pp. 335-36.

“Christine Dobbm, op. cit; pp. 140-41.

“Khalid B. ^yecd, op. cit; p. 120.

‘•Louis Fischer, A Week with Gandhi, p. 55.

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement (1930-1945) 181

®®Sir Maurice Gwyer and A. Appadorai (ed), Speeches and Documents on the Indian Constitu¬
tions 1921-47, Vol. II, (1957). p. 525.
pp, 536-37.

’^^Congress Bulletin, April 22,1942.

®®Durga Das, India from Curzon to Nehru and After, (1969), p. 205.

^^Resolutions of the All India Muslim League from April, 1942 to May 1943, (Delhi), p. 2.
®®V.P. Menon. op. civ, p. 133.

®*J.L. Nehru, The Discovery of India, p. 473.

Congress Bulletin, May 23,1942.

^Harijan, May 3,1942.

^^Congress Bulletin, November 1, 1945.

•®Patfabhi Silaramayya, op. civ, Vol. II, pp. 341-43.

®’J.L- Nehru, A Bunch of Old Letters, (1958), p. 468-70.

•’Pattabhi Silaramayya, op civ, Vol. II, pp. 373-7^.

®®J.M. Deb, India Unreconciled, (1945), pp. 403-04.

•^R.C. Majumdar (ed). The History and Culture of the Indian People : Struggle for Freedom,
p. 696.

*®V.p. Menon, op, civ, p. 145-
**R. Coupland, op. cit; part II, p. 304,

"'^Rajagopalachari, The Way Out, November 30, 1943 (O-U.P.)

®*R.C. Majumdar (ed). The History and Culture of the Indian People : Struggle for Freedom,
op. cit; pp. 700-01

*®V.P, Menon, op. cit; pp. 162*63.

’’oibid. -

"^^Jinnah-Gandhi Talks, (September 1944, Delhi), pp. 37-44.

’*K.K. Datta, Renaissance, Nationalism and Social Changes in Modern India, op. cit;
pp. 87-88

’®R.C. Majumdar (ed). The History and Culture of the Indian People : Struggle for Freedom.
p. 713.

’®V.P. Menon. op. cit; p. 179-
’’Mbid., p. 182-215.

’’^Ihid.

’^Khalid B. Sayeed, op. cit; p. 133.

’’^The Indian Review, Vol. XXXVIII, July 1937, p. 439.

’•77/c Amrita Bazar Patrika, May 4, 1939.

»ojhid.

'^^Ibid, June 25, 1939,

*-Harijan, July, I, 1939.

^Hbid

^*The Amarita Bazar Patrika, July 18, 1939.

^'>The Indian Annual Register, 1939, Vol. II. p. 7.

®®Lanlca Sundaram, ‘'Pundit Nehru's Visit: Future of the Indo-Ceylon Relationship”, Ibid, July
31, 1939.

”Ibid.

•*877re Star of India, July 26, 1939,

Indian Annual Register, 1939, Vol. II, pp- 9-10.

®“J.L. Nehru, Autobiography, p. 608.

*^The Indian Annual Register, 1939, Vol. II, pp, 213-14.

^^UrmWa PYiiinh, “The 1964 Indo Ceyhnese Pact and the Stateless Persons in Ceylon," India

Quarterly, Vol. XXII1. No, 4.1967, p. 370.

Asian Women’s Conference, First Session, Lahore 19th September to 25th January,
1931, (1931), pp. 33-81.

^^The Indian Review, Vol. XXXVIII. March 1937, p. 78.3.

*®Sir Charles Jeffries. Ceylon, The Path to Independence, (1962), pp. 89-9Q

182

Indian Nationalism and Asia

**The Modem Review, Vol, LXXlV, July 1943, p. 11.

^Ibid.,p 12.

wj.L. Nehru, The Unity of India, p. 389.

^The Indian Annual Reghter, 1945, Vol. I, pp. 324-26.

looG.P. Bhattacbarjee, India and Politics of Modem Nepal, (1970), p. 27.

^^^^Shriman Narayan, India and Nepal, p. 29.

•“^lodraPrakash, A Review of the History and Work of the Hindu Mahasabha and the Hindu
Sangathan Movement, (1938), p. 198.

Savarkar, Hindu Rashtra Darshan,A Collection of the Presidential Speeches Delivered
from the Hindu Mahasabha Platform, (1949), p. 2.

Khana], Background of Nepal's Foreign Policy, p. 2.

^®®0-P. Bhattacbarjee, op. cit-, pp, 24-25.

Modern Review, Vol. LXVIII, August 1940, p. 121.

'^^The Star of India, September 9, 1932,

^f^Ibid.

^^The Modern Review, Vol. LII, October, 1932, pp. 470-71.

^"^^Young India, September 24, 1931.

'I'TAp Indian Annual Register, 1938, Vol. II, p- 259.

^^'^The Modern Review, Vol. II, 1932, pp. 590-91.

“3/6/rf., Vol. LXVII. 1935, p. 748.

^'*rAe Indian Annutd Register, 1937, Vol. I, p. 235.

Independent India, Vol. I, No. 10. June 6, 1937, p. 4,

Indian Annual Register, 1943, Vol, I, p. 276*

^^"^The Indian National Congress, March, 1940 to September, 1946 p. 32.

“srAe Modern Review, June, 1945, Vol. LXXVII, p. 258.

^^’rAe Indian Annual Register, 1945, Vol. II, pp. 71.

^®®Robert Hardy Andrews : A Lamp for India, The Story of Madam Pandit, (1967), p. 218.

^^^The Amrita Bazar Patrika, June 26,1945.

^^^The Hindustan Standard, July 7,1945.

^®*Jao Romein, The Asian Century, p. 266.

12»G.E. Hall, Burma, p. 152.

^^^The Modern Review, Vol. LVII, 1935, p. 132.

"^^Uayakar Papers, File No. 454, p. 251*

i®®Govemment of India, Reforms Department, K.W. File No. 95/5/30.

^i^Ibid.

^90lbid.

i®iHugh Tinker, The Union of Burma, p. 4.

Burma Round Table Conference, November 27,1931-January 12,1932 Proceedings, pp, 30-65.
^^'•^The Amrita Bazar Patrika, April 11, 1929.
i®<7Ae Indian National Congress 1930-34, (1934), pp. 65-66.
issGovernment of India, Reforms Department, K.W- File No. 95/5/30-
i^Mbid.

^^^Ibid. File No. 15 Secret 1931.

K.W. File No. 95/5/30.

^*»Ibid.

^*iTbid.

KSGovernment of India, File No. 15/Sccret* 31 Notes.
i*3/AW.

*®*Govcmment of India, Reforms Department, K.W. II, File No. 95/5/30.

I'WGovemment of India, File No. 15/ Secret/31 Reforms.

The Leader, March 19, 1931,

Mme Tribune, March 19.1931.

Consolidation of th§ Indian NathmUsm Movement {1950-194S) 183

Indian Dally Mail^ January 21,1931.

^’^The Bombay ChrotdeU, Mardi 18,1931.

March 18, 1931.

“»Clted in The Indian Review, Vol. XXXVIII, May 1937, p. 301.

Independent India, Vol. I, No. 10, June 6, 1937.

Indian Review, June 1937, p. 376.

***W,S. Desai, India and Burma, A Study, pp. 4M2.

Indian Annual Register, 1938, Vol. II, p. 166.

^**Ibid„ p. 278.

»®*rAe Indian Review, Vol XXXVIII, September 1938, p.»624.

^•®Maung Maung, Burma and General Ne Win, (1969), pp. 63-64.

^•^Hugh Tinker, The Union of Burma, (1967), p. 8.

^*^The Indian Annual Register, 1939, Vol. I, p. 193.

^®*rAe Amrita Bazar Patrika, December 29, 1939.

^®®J.L. Nebru, The Unity of India, p. 389.

^^^TTie Indian Annual Register_ 1942, Vol. I. p. 276.

^^^The Indian National Congress : From March 1940 to September, 1946, p. 52.

^^The Amrita Bazar Patrika, May 6,1945.

June 26,1945.

i70MauDg Maung, op. civ, p. 158.
iWft/V/., p. I6I.

^"^^The Amrita Bazar Patrika, June 26, 1945.

^"^^Congress Bulletin, November 1,1945.

^’®Weroet Levi, Free India in Asia, p. 18.

^^*17ie Indian Quarterly Register, 1929, Vol. I, p. 353.

^"^^The Amrita Bazar Patrika, December 26,1929.

'^'^^The Indian Annual Register, 1934, Vol. I, p. 316.

Amrita Bazar Patrika, April 3,1934.

I’SGcorge E. Kirk, A Short History of the Middle East, (London 1961), p. 186.

^’*Jawaharlal Nehru, Eighteen Months in India 1936-37 Being Further Essays and Writings
(1938) pp. 133-37.

Indian National Congress 1936-37, p. 25.

^’^^The Amrita Bazar Patrika, July 19,1936.
i»7A/V/. •

^^^The Indian Annual Register, 1936, Vol. II, p. 310.

Indian Annual Register, 1936, Vol. 11, pp, 272-13-
^^^The Amrita Bazar Patrika, September 12,1936.

September 15. 1936.

is^F/ze Indian National Congress, Report of the General Secretary April-December, 1936, p. 24.
1*8 7Ae Amrita Bazar Patrika, September 28, 1936.

^^Hbid.

^^Ibid.

i*iTAe Indian Annual Register, 1936, Vol. II, p. 7.
iszFAc Star of India, September 30,1936.
ws/AW., October 3, 1936.
iM/A/rf., October 16, 1936.
i^sibid,, November 10,1936.

1*8 7%e Amrita Bazar Patrika, April 21, 1937.
i*i7Ae Indian Annual Register, 1937, Vol., I, p. 4.
i®*rAe Amrita Bazar Patrika, September 25. 1937.

September 26, 1937.

*«>/««/., October II, 1937.

2®i7Ae Indian Annual Register, 1937, Vol. II, p. 416.

184

Indian Nationalism and Asia

Indian Annual Resister, 1937, Vol. II. p. 402.

Ahmad, Pakistani and the Middle East, (1940), p. 162.

^^^The Times of India, October 18,1937.

®®‘‘77te Indian National Congress, 193&37, p. 15.

^°*Report of the Fifty-first Indian National Congress Haripura, 1938, (1938), p. 199.

Dorothy Norman (ed), Nehru: The First Sixty Years, Vo), 1, pp. 569-70.

^08Forward, August 8,1938.

^^The Star of India, August 27,1938-

^^^The Indian Annual Register, 1938, Vol, II, p* 354

^^^The Amrita Bazar Patrika. October 12, 1938.

^^^The Indian Annual Register, 1938, Vol. II, p. 354.

^^^Harijan, November 26, 1938.

^^^Tbid.

^^'^The Hindu, December 17, 1938.

®**Jami)-ud-Din Ahmad (ed). Some Recent Speeches and Writings of Mr. Jinnah, pp. 72-73.
^^"^The Star of India, January 31,1939.

2«/6<V/., February 9, 1939.

February 15, 1939.

22o/b;rf.. February 16,1939.

^^’^TTie Indian Annual Register, 1939, Vol* I, p. 382.

222/6W., p. 327.

^-^Reportof the Fifty-Second Indian National Congress, pp. 150-51-

Resolutions of the All India Muslim League: From December, 1938 to March 1940, p. 5-
-^^TTte Indian Annnal Register, 1939, Vo). I, p. 381.

^-^The Amrita Bazar Patrika, June 15,1939.

. 227G.E. Kirlc, op. cit, p. 188.

^^^Resolutions of the Ail India Muslim League: From December 1938 to March 1940, p. 12.
22»/6W.. p. 28.

Indian Annual Register, 1940, Vo). II, p. 249.

““^Jamil-ud Din Ahmad (ed), op. cit; p. 148.

^^‘‘‘Resolutions of the All India Muslim League : From December 1938 to March 1940, p. 49.
33»G.E. Kirk, op. cit; pp. 199-200.

‘‘^^Resolutions of the AH India Muslim League: From April 1941 to April 1942, pp. 5-6.

-^^The Indian Annual Register, 1941, Vol. I, pp. 298-99.

-^^Resolutions of the All India Muslim League : From April 1941 to April 1942, p, 21.

Indian Annual Register, 1941, Vol. II, p. 217.

1942. Vol. I. p. 335.

23*/6/rf., p. 334.

®^®Jamil.ud-Din Ahmad fed), op. cit; pp, 301-02.

^*tResolutions of the AH Mia Muslim League; From April, 1942 to May, 1943, pp. 21-22.

pp. 21-22.

^“^The Indian Annual Register, 1943, Vol. II, pp. 287-88.

Ahmad, Pakistan and the Middle East, op. cit; p. 167.

2*677;e Indian Annual Register, 1944, Vol. I, p. 210.

p. 215.

247/A/</., p. 217.

2«tt/</..p 245.

2«»r/;e Indian National Congress, March 1940 to September 1946: Being the resolutions passed
by the Congress, the AH India Congress Committee and the Working Committee, (Allahabad), p. 131,

ssoNehru’s Statement in Dorothy Norman, (ed), op. «7; p. 601 ,

Indian Annual Register, 1942, Vol. I, pp. 123-24.

’‘'^‘■‘Records of the Twelfth Assembly, 1931, p, 43.

Records of the Special Session of Assembly, Special Supplement, No. 101,1932, p. 76.

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement {1930-1945)

185

^^^Repart of the Forty-Nine Session of the Indian National Congress 1936, p. 35.

Amrita Bazar Patrika, October 11,1937.

^^Independent India. Vol. I, No. 10, June 1937, p. 10.

Hindustan Times, July 20.1937.

2«8rAe Hindustan Times, July 30,1937.

28»7%c Modern Review, Vol. LXII, 1937. pp. 344-54.

2WRam Manohar Lohia, Congress Political and Economic Studies. No. 9. Indian on China,

(1938). p. 15.

2«/W</., pp. 14-15.

-•me Amrita Bazar Patrika, September 27, 1937.

^••The Times of India, September 28, 1937*

77mcJ, October 7, 1937. „ „ „„ r,, c- •

-••Important Speeches and Writings of Subhas Chandra Bose, Being a Collection of Most Signi¬
ficant Speeches, Writings and Letters from 1927 to 1945, p. 168.

^-•^Congress Political and Economic Studies No. 9, India on China, op. at., p. 16.

^••The Amrita Bazar Patrika, October 27, 1937.

^••The Indian National Congress, 1936-37, p. 15.

-’’•The Amrita Bazar Patrika, January 30,1938-
2’irAe Modern Review. 1937, Vol. LXII, p. 484.

Nehru, A Bunch of Old Letters, 1958, a, 250.

222/AW., pp. 250-52.

22477/e Indian Annual Register, 1938, Vol. I, p. 417-
2»8rAe Amrita Bazar Patrika, January 6, 1938.

-t9Ibid, January 10,1938.

'^Tflbid.

•^mbid.

'-’’^Ibid., January 11, 1938.

twiThe Indian Annual Register, 1938, Vol. I, p. 400-

-•^ Report of the Fifty-First India National Congress, pp. 198-99.

28-T//e Indian Annual Register, 1938, Vol. I, P* 393.

282r//e Hindu, April 20, 1938.

®8*Irvin S-Friedman, op. cit., p. 26.

285r//e Indian Annual Register, 1938, Vol, I, p. 49.

^^•Tlie Amrita Bazar Patrika, July 8,1938.

282rAe Indian National Congress : The All Indian Congress Committee Foreign Department

News Letter, August 16,1938.

assDorothy Norman (ed), op. cit; p. 568.

282/AW., p. 572.

220/AW., pp. 572-74.

^•'lbid.,p. 596.

2»27%e Manchester Guardian, September 8,1938.

*82Irvin S. Friedman, op. cit., p. 25,

*«*T’Ae Modern Review, October, 1938, pp, 486-88.

285/A/W., July 1938, pp. 486-88.

228/AW.

*B2Krishnalal Shridharni, Warning to the West, 1944, pp. 94-95.

••^Harijtm, August 27, 1938.

•••Ibid.

•••The Amrita Bazar Patrika, September 2,1938.

••^Foreign Department News Letter, September 15, 1938.

ao2rA« Indian Annual Register, 1938, Vol. I, P, 420.

mReport of the Fifty-Second Indian National Congress, 1939, pp, 84-85.

so*Dorothy Norman, op. cit. p. 574.

•••The Indian Annual Register, 1939, Vol. I, p. 99.

186

Indian Nathnaiism mtd Asia

^Jawahar Lai Nehru, China. Spain and the War. Essayt and Writings, (1940), p. 20.

®“’Irvio S. Friedman, op. civ, p. 20.
aoajbid, >

»»*S.T. Hsich, *'Nehru's week in Chungking**, Asia, Vol. XXXIX, No. II, p. «62,

■3108. Prasad, The Origins of Indian Foreign Policy, p. 140.

311 TAe Indian Annual Register, 1939, Vol. 11, p. 229.

3i377lte Amrlta Bazar Patrika, September 4,1939.

Gokhale, The Making of the Indian Nation, 1966, p. 336.

*'^4S.T. Hsieh, op. cif, p. 662.

*i**P.C. Chakravarti, India-China Reliaions,(196\), p. 6.

3i''S.T. Hsieh, op. cif, p. 662.

Nehru, China, Spain and the War, op. cif, pp. 21*23.

^iBibid.

3i07Ae Nation, 1942, p. 411.

32oj,l. Nehru, China, Spain and the War, pp. 21-25.

L. Nehru, Towards Freedom The Autobiography ofjawahar Lai Nehru, (1941), pp. 367-68.
®®2J.L. Nehru, Autobiography, p. 608-
333S.T. Hsieh, op. cif, p. 608.

®3*Basil Mathews, "World wide Reactions to Events in India", Asiatic Review, Newseries, Vol.
XXXVI, April, 1910, p. 261.

oiSMjss Bhicoo Batlivala, “India Knows What to Expect", Asia, Vol. XL, July, 1940, p. 374.
330J.L. Nehru, A Bunch of Old Letters, p. 380.

32»/6/rf,. pp. 395-96.

3387%e Indian Annual Register, 1940, Vol. II, p. 201.

323J.L Nehru, ‘‘India’s Demand and Britain’s Answer” Atlantic Monthly, April, 1940.

339The Indian Annual Register, 1940, Vol. II, pp. 311-12.

331,4// India Congress Committee, Foreign Department News Letter, July 18, 1940.

333J.L. Nehru, A Bunch of Old Letters, pp. 438-39.

B^sjbid., pp. 440-41.

334/A/</., pp. 444-45.

333KrishDaIaI Shridharani, op. cif, p. 98.

336The Hindu, July 8, 1941.

997Ibid., November 9,1941.

998Ibid., January, 10, 1941.

999ibid„ March II, 1941.

330J.L. Nehru, Before and After Independence, p. 197.

9^^Congress Bulletin, February 5, 1942.

3*3D.Q. Tendulkar, Mahatma, op. cit; Vol. VI, pp. 51-52.

333R.E, Sherwood, Roosevelt and Hopkings, 1948, p. 115.

9**The Indian Annual Register, 1942, Vol. I, p. 121.

9*9jbid., p. 131.

9\8The Amrlta Bazar Patrika, February 13, 1942.

8 «r/ie Indian Annutd Register, 1942, Vol. I. pp. 206-07.

*9BThe Now York Times, February 22,1942.

■‘®Araba Prasad, The India Revolt of 1942 ,1958 p. 21.

35opattabhi Sitaramayya, op. cif, Vol. II, p. 61.

3Si7’Ae Indian Annual Register, 1942, Vol. I, p. 347.

99iibld.

353/A/.f., p. 47.

3647A/«/.. p, 306.

885/Aii„ p. 309.

33<Pattabhi Sitaramayya. op. cif, Vol. II, p. 61.

997 fbe Indian Annual Register, 1942, Vol. I, p. 121.

998The New York Times, February 22, 1942.

3»3TAf Indian Atmual Register, 1942, vol. I, p. 135.

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement il930-194S)

*«0|X. Nehrn, The Discovery of India, op. cif, pp. 457-58.

**ynte Amrita Bazar Patrika, March 8, 1942.

w^TTire Indim Annual Register, 1942. Vol. I, p. 44. \

p, 73.

awTA# Indian Review, Vol. XXXXIIl, 1942, p. 325.
p. 301.

^*The Indian Annual Register, 1942, Vol. II, p. 58.

Kundra, Indian Foreign Policy, 1947-54, (1955), p. 40.

8*87)it« Indian Annual Register, 1942, Vol, II, p. 3.

39marijan, May 3. 1942.
ifoibid., June I, 1942.

a^'Nirmal Kumar Bose, Selections from Gandhi, pp. 179-82.

Vf^arijan, June 21, 1942.

^’>^The Times, London June 20,1942.

Louis Fischer, A Week with Gandhi, 1942, p. 32.

37SSatyapal & Probodh Chandra, Sixty Years of the Congress, 1946 p. 336.

»f»HarlJan, July 26,1942.

^’•'•Ibid

^"^^The India Annual Regiuer 1942, Vol. II, pp. 241-44.

^^The Modern Review, Vol. LXXII, 1942, p. 2'9.

380 The Indian National Congress, March 1940 to September 1946. op. cit; p. 30-33.

38' The Modem Review, Vol. II, LXXII, 1942, p. 442.

3827%^ New York Timev, August 12.1942.

383Loui8 Fischer, The Great Challenge, (1946), p. 162.

38*Amba Prasad, The Indian Revolt of 1942. 1958, p. 115.
asbJTitf Modern Review, Vol. LXXXI, 1942. p. 207.

The New York Times, August 11, 1942.

^«flbid.

3887yie Amrita Bazar Patrika, August 13, 1942.

^Biibid.

3307 %^ ffew York Times, August 12, 1942.

Indian Annual Register, 1942, Vol. II. p. 18.

^^'^The Hindu, May 31,1940,

^*^Ibid., January 13, 1943.

*3*S. Radha Krishnan, India and China, 1944, p- 29.

335Mam Mohan Ghosh, op. cit; pp. 62-63.

838K.B. Vaidya, And Now China, 1945, pp. 16-17,

«9’r/ie Hindu, March 10. 1939.
zwjije Hindustan Times, May 18, 1945.

338r/ie Hindu, November 2, 1945.

33077 ,^ Hindustan Times, August 8, 1945.

^oiTTie Amrita Bazar Patrika, .Tune 26,1945*

*f>^The Hindustan Times, July 9,1945.

3837%^ Amrita Bazar Patrika, January 21, 1938.

383J. L. Nehru, The Discovery of India, p. 507.
sosKiran Misra, op. cit; p. 157.

*o^Report of the Fifty-First Indian National Congress, p. 190.

307b. Prasad, The Origins of Indian Foreign Policy, pp. 124-25.

388Wemer Levi, op. cit; p. 24.

*^The lYibune, August 20,1939.

338Krishnalal Shridharani, op. cit; pp. 70-71.

3t>/6/</., p. 71.

3^3Khwaja Ahmed Abbas, “Fascism over India’’, Asia, Vol. XXXIX, June 1939, p. 324,
*imid.

3l3Michae| Edwardes, The Last Years of British India, p. 19-

187

188

/luftoi Nationalism and Ada

**®MfchaeI Edwardes, The Last Tears of British ItuBa, p. 79.

•**J. L. Nehru, The Discovery of India, pp. 543>44.
pp. 569-70.

^^»Congress Bulletin, May 23, 1942.

*’*Maulaoa Abul Kalam Azad, India Wins Freedom, p. 64.

Bright (ed). Important Speeches and Writings of Sdbhas Chandra Bose, pp. 213-320.
**^Wemer Levi, op. cit, p. 26. ,

'***A.C. Bose “Japanese Attitude Towards Indian Nationalism, \9Ai-Ai,*'Proceedings of the
Thirty-First Session of the Indian History Congress held at Varansi, 1969, 1970, pp. 462-63.
*28Nobutalce Ike, Japan's Decision for War, (Stanford, 1967), p. 247.

*®^A.C. Bose, op. cif, pp. 462-63.

*®®A.C. Bose, op. cit; p. 463.

^^•Satyapal and Prabodh Chandra, op. cit; p. 374.

*-’A.C. Bose, op. cit; p. 463.

^-*K.C. Giani, Indian Independence Movement in East Asia, (1947), pp. 36-37.

C. Majumdar (ed). The History and Culture of the Indian People Struggle for Freedom,
pp. 683-84.

430satyapal and Prabodh Chandra, op. cit; p. 375.

*®^A.C. Chatterjee, India's Struggle for Freedom, pp. 20-21.

*32K.S. Oiani, op. ciP, pp. 101-02.

*^*lbid.

*®*Satyapal and Prabodh Chandra, op, cit; p. 376.

Contemporary Japan, March 1942, Vol. XI, No. 3, p. 471.

««/Ak/., April. 1942, Vol. XI, No. 4, p. 480.
p. 648.

4“/6iV/.. June 1942, Vol. XI, No. 6.968.
p. 972.

April 1942, Vo!. XI, No. 4, pp. 504-17.

441/&W., May 1942, Vol. XI, No. 5. pp. 685-701.

**:'Ibid., September 1942. Vol. XI, No. 9, pp. 685-701.

4 *37Wrf„ April 1943, Vol. XII, No. 4. pp. 426-37.

June 1943, Vol. Xll, No. 6, p. 792.

446Satyapal and Prabodh Chandra, op. cit; p. 377.

*^®S.A. Ayer, "The Indian Independence Movement in East Asia" Netaji Research Bureau
Bulletin, Vol. II, No. I» July 1961, pp. 8-9.

‘**’Hugh Toye. Subhas C/tundra Bose, The Springing Tiger, 195, pp. 83-85-
***A.C. Chatterjee, op. cit; p. 38.

®^®Shah Nawaz Khan, My Memories of I.N.A. and its Netaji, (1946), pp- 116-18.

*^lbid., 402, A.C. Chatterjee, op. cit; p. 80.

“'’Werner Levi, op. cit; p. 26.

*^mid.,

*®®Jan Romein, op. cit; p. 295.

"“Hugh Toye, op. cit: pp. 83-85.

“"Werner Levi, op. cit; p. 27.

“"TAe Indian Annual Register, 1945, Vol. II, p. 277.

“®’/Wd., 1946, Vol. I, pp. 269-84.

“**R. C. Majumdar (ed). The History and Culture of the Indian People : Struggle for Freedom,
p. 723.

“®*A.J. Barker, The March on Delhi, (1963), p. 246.

“•«F.C. Jones. Japan's New Order in East Asia, 1937-45, (1954), pp. 3-4 & p. 465.

“•’Werner Levi, op. cit; p. 26.

“•®D.P. Singh, “Japan and the Quit India Movement”. Proceedings eft^e Thirt^FitiSi Session
of the Indian History Congress held at Varanasi, 1969, p. 472.

“•'TAp Amrita Bazar Patrika, January 7, 1945.

Consolidation of the Indian Nationalism Movement (1930-1945)

189

^*The Amrlta Bazar PatrikOt January 9, 1945.

January 10,1945.

Report of the Forty-Third Indian National Congress, p. 92,

**^AU-Asian Women*s Conference, Fitst Session, Lahore I9th to 25th January, 1931, 1931,
Preface.

*^lbid.
mbid., p. 24.

pp. 3341.

Appendix.

*^^Ibid., p. 5.
mbid.

p. 141.
p. 165.

Indian Annual Register, 1934, Vol. I. p. 351.

»i^Ibid.

^’’*Ibid., pp. 352-53.
mbid,, p. 353.

i*^-Ibid.

*mbid., p. 354.

Werner Levi, op. cit; p. 34.

48'J.L. Nehru, The Unity of India, p. 389.

***rAf’ Indian National Congress : From March 1940 to September 1946, pp. 30-33.

*^^The Modern Review, Vol. LXXII, July 1942, p. 6-
^MfAe Indian Annual Register, 1944, Vol. I, p. 210.

'*®*Krishnalal Shridharani. op. cit; p. 69.

**®J.L. Nehru, The Discovery of India, p. 559.

*9^ J.L. Nehru, Before and After Independence, p. 279.

‘9-Krishnalal Shridharani, op. civ, pp. 116-20.

CHAPTER VI

LAST PHASE OF INDIA’S FREEDOM STRUGGLE
AND THE ZENITH OF INDIAN ATTEMPTS FOR
ASIAN SOLIDARITY 1945-1947

The Second World War brought Indian affairs to a crisis and as soon as the
war ended, the British realised that they could no longer withstand the pressure of
Indian opinion. By this time the urge for freedom became very deep and people
began to feel restless. Zafrullah Khan, addressing the Commonwealth Conference
in February, 1945 had rightly assessed the Indian political situation in saying that
India was growing impatient of foreign rule and that the sense of disappointment and
frustration was being aggravated.^ Meanwhile some incidents took place both in
India and in Great Britain which made the Indian problem an urgent one. The gene¬
ral election in Great Britain resulted in the installation of a Labour Government on
August 3,194S which wanted an early settlement of the Indian problem. The trial
of the I.N.A. personnel caused nationwide resentment against the alien rule. Public
sympathy in favour of the I.N.A. personnel forced the British to revise their policy
towards India. Frustration and disaffection was not confined to the people alone,
it caught hold of the Indian members of the Royal Navy who went on strike against
untold hardships regarding pay and food and the outrageous facial discrimination.
Sympathetic strikes by Indian naval personnel occured in Karachi, Delhi, Madras
and Calcutta The Array and the Air Forces were not altogether unaffected. There
was trouble in several places, though not of a serious character.^

All these events manifested the deep-rooted resentment against the British Rule
and removed the very basis of the support of the armed forces upon which the Bri¬
tish Raj in India depended. The British Government realised that changes were
needed in their attitude towards India. Hence, on August 21, 1945 the British
Government announced that the elections to the various legislatures would be held
in the end of that year. On September 19, 1945 the Viceroy, Lord Wavell, announc¬
ed that the British Government was determined to promote in conjunction with the
leaders of Indian opinion, the early realisation of self-government in India and that
the elections to the central and provincial legislatures were to be held during the
cold weather. The announcement of the Viceroy also indicated that the British
Government had also decided to convene a constitution-making body.^ The elections
were held in December. 1945. In the elections the Congress secured majority in
Bombay, Madras, Bihar, U.P., Orissa and Central Provinces and Congress ministries
were formed in these provinces. In Sindh, Assam and North-West Frontier Province

Last Phase of India's Freedom Struggle {1945-1947) 1^1

tbe Congress formed coalition mbistry. The Muslim League formed Government in
Bengal and in Punjab the Unionists, Congrm and Akali Sikh formed a coalition.*
The troubles in tbe Royal Indian Navy and other pressing factors prompted
the British Prime Minister, C.R. Atlee, and Lord Pethick Lawrence to announce in
the House of Commons and the House of Lords respectively, on February 19, 1946,
that the British Government had decided to send out to India a Cabinet Mission
consisting of Lord Pethick Lawrence, Sir Stafford Cripps and A.V. Alexander to
discuss Indian problem with leaders of various organisations in India.^ On March
15, 1946, the British Prime Minister explaining the reasons for sending out the
Cabinet Mission to India declared that “the tide of nationalism was running very
fast in India and that it was time for clear and definite action. The Cabinet Mission
was going to India in a positive mood*'.*

Tbe Cabinet Mission arrived in India on March 24, 1946 and spent the first
three weeks in discussions with the Governors, Premiers of provinces, party leaders,
representatives of minorities, special interests and eminent Indian politicians. Hav¬
ing scrutinised the proposals and suggestions put forward by both the Congress and
the Muslim League, the Cabinet Mission on May 16, 1946 suggested its own solu¬
tions which were as follows :

There should be a Union of India, embracing both British India and the States,
which should deal with the foreign affairs, Defence and Communications ; and
should have the powers necessary to raise the finances required for the above
subjects. The Union should have an executive and a Legislature constituted
from British India and States’ representatives. Any question raising a major
communal issue in tbe Legislature should require for its decision, a majority of
the representatives present and voting of each of the two major communities as
well as a majority of all the members present and voting. All subjects other
than the Union subjects and all residuary powers should vest in the Provinces.
The states would retain all subjects and powers other than those ceded to the
Union. Provinces should be free to form groups with Executives and Legisla¬
tures. and each group could determine the provincial subjects to be taken in
common. The constitutions of the Union and of the groups should contain a
provision whereby and province could, by a majority vote of its Legislative
Assembly, call for a reconsideration of the terms of the constitution after an
initial period of ten years and at ten yearly intervals thereafter.’ Britain was to
transfer power to India soon after the Indian Constituent Assembly had framed
the constitution. In the meantime the administration of India was to be carried
on by an Interim Government consisting of the representatives of the Indian
political parties.*

The Cabinet Mission plan was appreciated by Gandhi who said that the Mis¬
sion had brought something of which they had every reason to be proud.® The
working of the plan depended upon the plan’s acceptance by the Congress and the
Muslim League which maintained vacillating policies at that critical movement of
Indian history. Just after few days of the Mission’s arrival in India, Jinnah h^
convened a convention of over four hundred members of the various legislatures in
Delhi, elected on the Muslim League tickets. In a resolution, the Convention demand¬
ed a sovereign and independent state of Pakistan comprising the six provinces of

tndlan i^ationaiism and Asia

191

Bengal and Assam, Punjab, N.W.F. Provinces, Sindh and Baluchistan and it also
demanded the setting up of two separate Constitution making bodies by the peoples
of Pakistan and Hindustan.^**

With the passage of time certain chaiiges took place. On June 6, 1946 the
Council of the Muslim League accepted the Cabinet Mission’s proposals and autho>
rised Jinnah to negotiate with the Viceroy in regard to the Interim Government.^^
Qn June 16, 1946, the Viceroy proposed to set upon Interim Government of 14 per¬
sons, six belonging to the Congress, five to the Muslim League, one Sikh, one
Indian Christain and one Parsi.^^ After much higgling and bargaining, acceptances
and refutations the Interim Government vtaa formed by Nehru on September 2,
1946. Later on, in October, 1946, the Muslim League joined the Interim Govern¬
ment. But the Muslim League had started a new movement by observing August
16, 1946, as Direct Action Day which unleashed forces of anarchy, mass killing and
Hindu-Muslim riots. This caused bitterness between the two Communities and the
Congress and the Muslim League. The Interim Government could not function in
a cordial atmosphere because the Congress and the Muslim League did not work
as partners but as two factions.

The British Government announced its own plan on February 20, 1947. Atlee
made the statement that the British Gavernment intended to transfer power to
Indian hands by a date not later than June 1948. If the Indian parties would not
work out an agreed constitution by that date then the British Government would
have to consider to whom it should transfer the powers of the Indian Central
Government “Whether as a whole to some form of Central Government for British
India, or in some areas to the existing provincial governments, or in such other way
as may seem reasonable and in the best interests of the Indian people”.^^ On the
same day Atlee announced that Wavell was to be replaced by Lord Mountbatten
who was sworn in as Viceroy on March 24, 1947 to complete the transfer of power
to Indian hands. It would be an epic story to narrate in detail the various schemes
put forward by the British Government, the Congress and the Muslim League for
the solution of Indian problem and the untoward things that happened in the course
of this process. Without going into those complicated affairs of this critical period
of Indian history it could be said that the process of the transfer of power to Indian
hands was completed on August IS, 1947, when India emerged as an independent
nation, losing some portions of its territory which were constituted into a separate
state to be known as Pakistan. Thus, the long struggle for independence launched
by the Indian people became successful but resulted in the very partition of tbe
country.

During this period from 1945 to 1947 the fate of India was in the melting pot
and all the energies of the leaders were mobilised with a view to attaining freedom.
But, her great pre-occupations did not deter India from expressing her solidarity
with Asian nations. During the last phase of its struggle for independence, India
evinced keen interests in world affmrs in general and in the affairs of Asia in parti¬
cular. The intense love for the neighbours and the opposition to imperialism
impelled the Indian nationalist leaders to view with alarm the attempts made by the
Western powers to reimpose their colonial stronghold over South J^st Asian coun¬
tries relieved temporarily by Japan from the iron grip of the Western imperialism.

tjost Phase of Mia's Freedom Struggle (1945-194?)

193

Hie All India Congress Committee in September 1945 candidly stated that India
would deeply resent any attempt to maintain the political and economic subjection
of Burma, Malaya, Indochina and Indonesia. It pointed out that India would
emphatically object to the use of Indian troops for the continuation of the imperia¬
list control over South East Asia. The Congress Committee further sent its greetings
to the peoples of the countries of South East Asia and expressed its deep satisfac¬
tion at the conclusion of the war which had ravaged these countries for years to¬
gether. The Committee also referred to the question of Indian settlers in Burma
and Malaya and hoped that the representatives of Indian, Burma and Malaya would
arrive at a satisfactory settlement for the interest of their countries which had been
united in fraternal bonds since time immemorial.^’^

Indochina and Indonesia attracted Indian public opinion on a wide scale. In
both these lands the French and the Dutch were making serious attempts to reinsti¬
tute their hegemony which were highly resisted by the nationalists of these two
countries. In their fight for independence Indians expressed sympathy with them. On
September 24, 1945, Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi Pandii emphatically stated in New York
that India’s freedom could have no meaning unless Burma, Malaya and other
colonial possessions were also free.^*’ Addressing a mass meeting Sarat Chandra
Bose strongly protested against the use of Indian troops in French Indochina to
put down the nationalist movement there.'^ Asaf Ali strongly criticised the despatch
of the Indian troops to Indochina and expressed solidarity with the Indo-Chinese
people in their struggle against the French rule.'^ On September 30, 1945, P.C.
Joshi, General Secretary of the Communist Party of India, issued a statement in
which he characterised as outrageous the action of the Government of India in
allowing Indian troops to be sent to Java to re-establish Dutch Imperial rule and
criticised the imperialist powers who were trying to defame Soekarno as a Japanese
agent. He appealed to all trade unions to pass resolutions condemning use of arms
to destroy Indonesian people’s movement for independence.'^ Krishan Menon,
Secretary of the India League in London, in a letter to British Prime Minister
protested against the use of Indian troops against the people of Indochina, Malaya
and other Asiatic territories liberated from the Japanese rule.^"

On October 1, 194$ a conference of the Hindu Mahasabha held at Calcutta
under the Chairmanship of Dr. Shayama Prasad Mukherjee recorded its emphatic
protest against the use of Indian soldiers for the suppression of freedom movements
in Indochina, Malaya and Java and urged upon the Government of India to recall
all Indian units that had been sent to these countries for this purpose.'' On October
5, 1945, Rajendra Prasad in an interview at Calcutta, declared that quit India
meant quit Asia, if India came out of Empire no other part of Asia could remain
under any European power for any length of time.^^ Addressing a mammoth gather¬
ing of the citizens and workers of Calcutta on October 6, 1945, Mrinal Kanti Bose,
President, All India Trade Union Congress, emphatically stated that the employment
of Indian troops in Indochina and Java ostensibly to restore law and order but really
to reimpose French and Dutch imperial rule on those countries was an outrage on
Indian sentiment. Expressing his sympathy for both the Indo-Chinese and the Indo¬
nesian people, Bose declared that had India beeiTfree, she would have sent troops
no doubt to these countries but to help these Asiatic brethren to oust their imperia-

194

In^n Nationalism and Asia

list masters.^’

Sympathy for Indo-China and Indonesia became so deep and profound in
India that people belonging to every walk of life expressed their solidarity with
these countries, igu/r was observed by the Bengal Provincial Students*

Federation on October 15, 1945. ‘*Hands off Indochina and Indonesia** was their
slogan and the students demanded withdrawal of Indian troops from these places.
Quit Asia Day was observed at Howrah, Madras, Amritsar, Gaya, Poona and
pther places. R.K. Khadilkar and Kamraj Nadar speaking at these celebrations
appreciated the students* activities and expressed their sympathy with the nationalist
movements in Indochina and Indonesia.^* Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi Pandit lent her
support to the freedom movements in Indochina and Indonesia.^'’The All India
Ahrar Conference held at Amritsar in October, 1945, congratulated the Nationalists
of Java and Indochina on their struggle for independence.^”

To express India’s solidarity with Indochina and Indonesia, the Congress
president, Abul Kalam Azad, urged the Indian to observe Indonesia Day on
October, 28, 1945 throughout the country. Addressing a public meeting held to
celebrate South*£ast Asia Day at Lucknow on October 28, 1945, Nehru said that
the fight for India’s freedom was interlocked with the liberation movement of other
Asiatic countries which were determined to achieve their independence. He, however,
regretted that India was not strong enough to prevent Indian troops from crushing
the spirit of independence of the people of Indonesia and Indochina.^^ Snuth*East
Asia Day was observed at Poona and Bombay and a resolution condemning
attempts to suppress the freedom movements in Indochina and Indonesia by the
French and Dutch imperialists was adopted by the Bombay Provincial Congress
Committee. Kanpur and Karachi celebrated South-East Asia Day and protested
against the reimposition of the colonial rule over Indochina and Indonesia and asked
for the immediate withdrawal of Indian troops from these countries.^” Mrs. Ammu
Swaminathan, Congress candidate for the Central Assembly election for the Madras
city constituency, presiding over a public meeting at Madras on October 26, 1945,
strongly protested against the use of Indian troops against the freedom movements
in Java, Indonesia and in other Asian countries.”” In a message to students read at
a meeting of the Delhi Provincial Students* Federation held at New Delhi in October
30, 1945, Mrs. Sarojini Naidu stated that it was the paramount duty of the younger
generation to work with united purpose for the realisation of India's destiny which
would ensure the destiny of free Indonesia and Indochina and other sister lands.
The meeting condemned the use of Indian troops against the freedom movements
in Indochina and Indonesia and congratulated Indian Seamen and dockers in
Australia for refusing to load Dutch Ships carrying arms and ammunitions.””
Addressing a mass meeting at Bombay on November 10, 1945, Nehru stated that it
was a matter of shame that the British Empire should be using all its might to re¬
establish to Dutch Empire in Indonesia.”^ On November 14, 1945, Indian Seamen
recruited to man a Dutch Ship in Bombay harbour in place of Indonesian Seamen,
refused to work.®”

Mutual understanding between India and Indonesia developed to such an extent
that Dr. Soekarno, leader of Indonesian nationalist movement, invited Nehru to visit
Indonesia. Interviewed by a correspondent of the Associated Press of India on the

195

Last Phase of india*s Freedom Struggle (1945-1947)

in^tation extended to him by Soekarno to visit Java and inspect to conditions pre¬
vailing there, Nehru said, '*1 should like to tell Dr. Soekarno that if I can be of any
service to the cause of Indon^ian freedom, I shall gladly visit Java inspite of the
urgent and important work in India. I believe that our freedom in India or Java or
elsewhere hangs together and if I can serve the cause of freedom in Java now better
than in India I shall certainly go there*'.’^ Sardar Petal in his letter to Nehru
advised him to visit Indonesia if he got the facilities because Nehru’s visit, Sardsr
thought, would do a" lot of good to the many millions of our countrymen spread
over in various parts of East Asia, apart from the good that it would do to the
general cause of freedom of all Asian races.^^ But this visit could not take place
because the British India Government did not grant the necessary facilities to Nehru.
However, Nehru had deep love for Indonesia. In his letter dated October 16,
1945 to Sardar Patel, Nehru expressed his sympathy for Indonesia and said : ’The
Indonesian struggle is becoming mpre intense and critical and I feel that we ought
to give it greater prominence. It would be a good thing if there were meetings etc.
But the most dramatic thing would be for our dock workers and Seamen to refuse
to load war material for Java, as the Australians dld**.^'^

On October 28, 1945, Nehru declared in Moradabad that the people of India
will stand by the Indonesian demand for independence and will give all the help
they can.^° He added that the people of India resented the use of Indian troops
against the national freedom movement in Indonesia.On October 15,1945, he had
declared at Allahabad : ‘*We must insist that no Indian troops are used against
the Government of the Indonesian Republic and that no material of war is sent
from India to help the Dutch Government. We must help Indonesia wherever we
can.”“ On October 22, 1945, Neharu called for the withdrawal of British troops and
for the immediate recognition of Soekarno’s Provisional Government.** Maulana
Azad declared on October 19, 1945, “things have come now to the point when
Congress will have to consider seriously what steps to adopt to prevent the use of
Indian men and material against the Asiatic peoples fighting for their freedom”.^*
He further declared that Indians could not but sympathise with the struggle of the
Indonesians.^^ Addressing a public meeting at Vizagapatam on November 9, 1945,
H.N. Kunzru vehemently condemned the use of Indian troops in suppressing the
freedom movement in Indonesia.^ The Amrita Bazar Patrika in its editorial under
the caption” “Long Live Indonesia” expressed India’s support for the Indonesian
people.** The All India Congress Working Committee watched with admiration and
sympathy the valiant struggle in defence of their newly won republic and indepen¬
dence which the people in Indonesia had been carrying on with unlimited courage
and determination against British and Dutch forces. The Committee condemned
the attempts to reinstitute the Dutch rule in Java and Indonesia against the declared
wishes of Indonesian people and protested against the use of Indian soldiers for such
purposes. The Committee also extended its sympathy and support to the nationalists
in bdochina and Indonesia and expressed its resentment at the British Government’s
refusal to grant necessary facilities to enable Nehru to proceed to Java in response
to Soekamo’s invitation.**

The All India Women’s Conference held at Hyderabad in December 1945 view¬
ed with alarm the attempts to suppress the rising tide of freedom movements in

196

In^n Nationalism and Asia

Indochina and Indonesia and protested against the use of Indian men, ships and
money to annihilate the freedom movement of the East and demanded the im*
mediate withdrawal of Indian troops from Indonesia.

Informed public opinion in India remained always sympathetic to Indonesia
and Indochina. Abdur Rahman Siddiqui in his presidential address to the All
India Indonesia Conference held at Lahore on January 19, 1946 demanded that
British interference in Java accompanied as it was by blood must cease forthwith.
Criticising the British and Dutch policies in Indonesia Siddiqui declared, “our sym¬
pathies go out to its people as Asiatics and Muslims**.*^ In Delhi, the Central Legis¬
lative Assembly in its meeting in January, 1946 carried a motion of censure against
the Government of India for permitting the use of Indian troops in Indonesia.^^
Several speakers followed one another in attacking the British India Government
as well as the British Government. Professor N.G. Ranga condemned the British
Government for being anxions to “prop up Dutch imperialism*’, and for wanting
to reinstate the Dutch imperialists in Indonesia. “The Indian Government”, Prof.
Ranga said, “has only decided to toe this line with British imperialism in order to
play the game of the Imperialists”.** Oiwan Chaman Lall said that the British troops
were not sent to Indonesia for a picnic, or for merely cooling their heels, but to
suppress the Indonesian nationalist Government. He further declared, “1 do not
think there could be anything more shameful and disgraceful in the history of this
country and in the actions of the Government than to permit Indian troops to be
utilised for this purpose”.** Sarat Chandra Bose said that India did not want to
dip her hands in her neighbour's blood and demanded the withdrawal of Indian
soldiers from Indonesia Abdur Rahman Siddiqui said that the behaviour of the
Government of India was disgraceful to the last degree, that Indian soliders were
used as, “mercenary marauders”, and that the government’s arguments have been
placed before the members for donkeys' earsJ'^ Speaking on the Censure motion on
Indonesia, M.A. Jinnah, leader of the Muslim League In the Central Assembly,
declared, “If my words can go to the British nation, I say that every Englishman
who had a shred of honour, ought to shudder and not be party to the operations
carried on brutally. You know there is universal feeling throughout India that it is
a disgrace and slur upon the honour of our soldiers to be called upon to fight
against a people fighting for independence.”**

Sympathy for Indonesia was so universal in India that even the Bombay Naval
Ratings on strike, while demanding better conditions for work, asked for the with¬
drawal of Indian troops from Indonesia.*^ On April 5,1946, Nehru expressed
disapproval of Great Britain’s foreign policy, particularly in relation to Indonesia
and favoured the idea of a united front of all Asian nations.** The Council of
the All India Muslim League at its meeting held in Delhi on April 10, 1946 condem¬
ned the delay in the withdrawal of British troops from Indonesia and particularly
the use of Indian troops for the purpose of helping the imperialist designs of the
Dutch in keeping Indonesia under subjection. The Council sent greetings and
congratulations to the brave Indonesian i^ople for their heroic resistance against
the Dutch imperialistic adventures and assured tibem of the sincere sympathy and
support of the Muslims of India for their just and patriotic cause by their sacrifices
for which they had raised the stature of Asia in the eyes of the world.** In Feb-

last Phase of India's Freedom Struggle (1945-1947) 197

ruary 1946, the Indian Legislative Assembly passed a motion of censure against
the Government of India for its failure to instruct its delegate to the United
Nations to convey to the Security Council the strong view of the Assembly concern*
ing Anglo*Dutch operations against Indonesia.®* Indian Interim Government envoy
at Batavia, Kundan, on March 9, 1947, told a Press Conference that the Indian
Government had undertaken to reject all offers to conclude commercial treaties
with the Government of the Netherland, East Indies, but was prepared to establish
trade relations with the Indonesian Republican Government.®®

Friendship with Indonesia was strengthened more when India suffering from
serious food crisis was offered a half million tons of rice by Indonesian Republic.
This good friendly gesture of Indonesia was highly appreciated by every section of
the Indian people. The Working Committee of the Indian National Congress con¬
veyed its gratitude to Dr. Shariar, Prime Minister of the Republic of Indonesia,
and to the Government of the people of Indonesia for their generous offer to
supply half a million tons rice to India at a time when Indonesia herself was facing
serious problems and difficulties. Expressing solidarity with Indonesian people the
Committee looked forward to close co-operation in the future between an indepen¬
dent India and an independent Indonesia.®’ Nehru also expressed the gratitude of
the Indian people to the Indonesian Prime Minister and considered this offer of
rice as the precursor of a closer friendship between India and Indonesia and expres¬
sed the hope that the people of Indonesia would emerge from its difficulties free
and triumphant.®®

During her freedom struggle India had been sympathetic to the national aspi¬
rations of the people of the Philippines and when the Philippinos emerged as an
independent nation in July 1945, Indians shared the joys of the Philippinos on their
success. On July 5, 1946, Nehru in a statement welcomed the declaration of the
independence of the Philippines and conveyed the goodwishes of India to the
people of the Philippines.®® The Congress Working Committee in July 1946 stated
that every advance of freedom in any country of Asia was welcome to the Indians
and wished a bright future for the Philippines. The Committee sent its greetings to
the people of the Philippines on their achievement of independence which, the
Committee considered, had opened a new chapter in their history. Recalling the
old ties between India and the Philippines the Committee declared that not only
history, but their common interests demanded close contact between the two
peoples

Nehru was the staunch supporter of the Indonesian people in their attempt to
get rid of the Dutch Imperialists. In his broadcast on September 7, 1946, Nehru
conveyed India’s good wishes to the Indonesian people.®^ It was this intense love
and fellow-feeling with Indonesian people that impelled the Interim Government of
India to back up these sentiments by ordering the withdrawal of Indian troops
from Indonesia and to distinguish India’s policy from that of Great Britain.®^ In
bis first Press Conference at New Delhi on September 26, 1946 as Minister in
Charge of External Affairs and Commonwealth Relations, Nehru emphatically
stated that India would watch with close interest the development of events m
Indonesia, Siam and Indochina. He also declared that the Interim Government was
to station an Indian Consul at Bangkok and Vice-Consul at Saigon in the near

198

Ir^an NaHonaltsm and Asia

future. Expressing his good wishes for the Indonesian people and pledging to help
them in every way in their task, Nehru stated: **We want them to win through
and establish their freedom in Indonesia.’**^

The 54th annual session of the Indian National Congress held at Meerut in
November 1946, sent its greetings to the Republic of Indonesia and congratulated
the Indonesian people on their successes and assured them of the goodwill of the
Indian people and their desire to co-operate in the fullest measure with the people
of Indonesia in the promotion of the freedom and advancement of the nations and
peoples of Asia.**

With the opening of the year 1947 the French imperialists made fresh vigorous
attempts to reimpose their stronghold over Vietnam and to crush the Vietnamese
nationalists. Indian nationalists took serious view of the Vietnamese situation,
criticised the French policy and sympathised with the Vietnamese people. Much
before in Delhi in January 1946 Nehru declared : **We have watched British inter¬
vention there with growing anger, shame and helplessness, that Indian troops
should be used for doing Britain's dirty work against our friends who are fighting
the same fight as we.”** In October 1946, he sent greetings to the Ho Chi Minh, the
leader of Vietnamese nationalist movement. In December 1946, he made clear to
France that Indians were with Indochinese and the French attempts to crush the
Indochinese nationalists had deeply hurt the Indian people.** J.B. Kripalani, the
Congress President, warned France of evil consequences if Indochinese were not
granted freedom.*^ A call to patriotic Indians to fight side by side with the Indo¬
chinese against the French troops was made by Sarat Chandra Bose at Calcutta on
January 3, 1947. He further pointed out that Indochinese struggle was a part of
the Asiatic struggle for liberation from Western domination ; therefore it was also
India’s struggle, and Indians must rush to the rescue of the Vietnamese people.**
On January 4, 1947, the Congress President, J.B. Kripalani regretted that the French
who valued their own freedom so high should try to deprive Vietnamese of their
freedom.**

In reply to a letter from the Representative in India of the Permanent Dele¬
gation in Paris of the Vietnam Democratic Republic, Mrinal Kanti Bose, Presi¬
dent of the All India Trade Union Congress, declared : *T have not the least doubt
that Indians to a man, except perhaps the indigenous allies of the British in this
country, are behind the Vietnamese in their struggle against the French who are
trying to refasten their rule on the territories they had semingly abandoned. 1 need
hardly say that the working class of India would be happy to render active assis¬
tance to our fellow-Asiatics who have been placed almost in the same position as
we have been in India.”'’'* In a message to MaiThe Chau, the Vietnamese representa¬
tive in India, Jinnah said : ’’Muslim India has full sympathy for your struggle and I
wish you success in the realisation of your aspirations and freedom.”^* On January
7,1947, Nehru declared that although India always had high regard for France,,
the attempt of France to crush the spirit of freedom in Indochina had deeply moved
the Indian people who had always stood for the freedom of every part of Asia.^*

Ravindra Verma, the president of the All India Students’ Congress, in the
course of a Press statement on January 13, 1947, made an appeal to the Interim
Government of India to bring diplomatic pressure on France to recognise and res-

Itut Phase of IruHa's Freedom Strt^gle {l945’l94Ti

199

pect die sovereignty of the Republic of Vietnam. Conveying the greetings of the All
India Students* Congress to the brave students of Vietnam, Verma declared that the
Students* Congress was solidly behind the people of Vietnam in their struggle to
defend the Democratic Republic against the French imperialistic aggression. He
called upon the Students’ Congress units all over India to observe January 21,1947
as Vietnam Day and urged the holding of rallies and meetings on that day to
explain the significance of the Vietnamese struggle and stage peaceful demonstra*
tions before French Consulate and offices in the country«^^ Sarat Chandra Bose in a
Press statement congratulated the All India Students* Congress on its decision to
support the Vietnam forces with student volunteers and materials in their struggle
against French imperialists, and appealed to the students and the general public all
over the country to observe Vietnam Day on January 21, 1947 with all due solem¬
nity and help in all possible ways to raise, train and equip an Indian Volunteers
Army which would take its stand alongside the Vietnam Republican forces.'* Indian
Volunteers were recruited by Congress members in Pondicherry.’® S. A. Dange, Vice-
President of the All India Trade Union Congress, called on the docker*s union to
boycott French Ships calling at Indian Ports carrying troops and arms to and from
Indochina.’** On January 14, 1947, Mrinal Kanti Bose announced that the All India
Trade Union Congress had given call to all its constituent unions, the provincial
committees and the regional councils of the All India Trade Union Congress in
Colombo, Calcutta, Bombay and Pondicherry to take immediate steps to boycott
French transports to and from Indochina.”

To express solidarity with Indochina the students all over India observed Jan¬
uary 21, 1947 as the Vietnam Day. Meetings and demonstrations were held, resolu¬
tions condemning the French Policy and sympathising with the Vietnamese people
were passed. The girl students of Calcutta tried to stop traffic by lying down on the
roads. Hand bombs were also thrown. While the students’ demonstrations were
passing through the College Street, Calcutta to express Indian students* support to
Vietnam, the Calcutta Police arrested over 200 students.’® About 80 persons were
injured.’* Disorders occured in Bombay on January 23, 1947 when the forty of
Subhas Bose’s followers and the Communists staged a demonstration before the
French Consulate, shouting slogans calling for the withdrawal of French troops
from Indochina.®* On January 23, 1947, Acharya Kripalani, the Congress President,
condemned the brutal police firing on students in Calcutta on the occasion of the
celebration of the Vietnam Day and pointed out that the demonstrations were meant
to show Indian solidarity with the cause of an Asiatic people struggling against Euro¬
pean imperialism.®* On February 9, 1947, Sarat Chandra Bose requested Nehru’s
help to send a volunteer expeditionary force and a medical mission to Indochina but
this request was rejected by Nehru on the ground that it would raise international
issues and the Government of India could not do that. Bose became aggrieved and
retorted that his request raised no international issue and that if the Government of
India, “for reasons of its own,*’wished to adopt a policy of non-intervention, the
least jt ought to do wtfs to allow “Indian Lafayettes to proceed to Vietnam*’.®*

It were not only the Indonesian and Indochinese freedom struggles which
evoked India’s interest but every Asiatic nation struggling for independence received
India’s sympathy and goodwill. China bad to bear the brunt of war for several

200

Indian Nationalkm and Asia

years. On the termination of the war MauUma Abul Kalam Azad congratulate t e
people of China on their victory over Japan.®® The All India Congress ConMittee
in September 1945 conveyed its greetings to the Chinese people and exposed rep
satisfaction at the end of the war which had caused them so much suffering.
Congress Committee further admired the Chinese people who had faced heroically
the war for eight years and expressed the hope that the Chinese people wou rise
to even greater heights and build up a united and strong nation for the
of peace and freedom in Asia.®* At a meeting of the students and teachers of i..ai-
cutta University held to felicitate China at the end of the war, Dr. Shyama Prasa
Mukherjee paid eloquent tribute to the people of China who fought a lone y war
against ruthless military might and observed : “A free India will march ®
hand with a free China and in that march of progress the other civilisations of Asia
also must find their own place.”®®

In the post-war years the temporary alliance between the Nationalists and t e
Communists began to wither away and civil war began to disturb the unity o
China. Indians viewed with deep regret and concern the civil war going on in
China. The Government headed by Chiang Kai Shek and the Communists hea e
by Mao Tse Tung seemed to be prepared for a showdown. Some of the Indian leaders
were also sympathetic to the Communists in China. Sarat Chandra Bose congratu
lated the Chinese Communists and regretted that the Indian National Congress
leaders had never spoken a word about General Chu Teh, Mao Tse Tung and ou
En Lai who were the real patriots of China®® and criticised Chiang Kai Shek and
Madame Chiang for their policies. Though Bose’s statement seemed to be the resu t
of a clear study of China’s state of alfairs but the Indian leaders in general did n<rt
want to be party to the internal dissension prevailing in China. Nehru deplore
Sarat Chandra B ise’s remark about Chiang Kai Shek and Madame Chiang an
pointed out that in this matter Sarat Bose did not represent the Congress view
point. Refuting the allegation made by Sarat Bose against the two Chinese lea ers,

• Nehru stated that to call Chiang Kai Shek a fascist was a manifest absurdity in
view of all that had happened during the past eight years He further stressed ^that
mutual goodwill between India and China was essential for the future of Asia, n
his letter to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Nehru referred to the statement of Sarat
Chandra Bose and said that Bose’s statement was likely to create unnecessary
trouble. He further wrote, “None of us admires all that Chiang Kai Shek has done.
But it does seem to be wrong for us to attack him in this way. He happens to be the
head of the Chinese state and so far as India is concerned his attitude has always
been very friendly.”®® Sardar Patel in his letter to Nehru also disapproved of the
Bose’s remark about Chiang Kai Shek.®*

A development towards the closing stages of the war was the rift between the
two Allies, the United States and Russia, over China policy. Russia seemed to be
dissatisfied with Chiang’s treatment of the Chinese Communists in the anti-Japa¬
nese coalition and America was believed to be managing to extend arras and other
aid only to the Kuoraintang and withholding them from the Communists. Indian
public opinin'on saw dangers in the rift between America and Russia over China
policy. The Hindu dated November 2, 1945 emphatically stated : “In China, as in
Europe, the urgent need of the hour is for Russo-American Co-operation to help in

Last Phase of India's Freedom Struggle {1945’1947)

201

the pacification of the post-war world.”"”

China also desired the well being of Indian people and shared the sense of
achievement of the Indian nationalists in the latter’s successes. When the Constituent
A ssembly opened its session to prepare the constitution for India, the Foreign
Minister of China sent the following message :

“On the auspicious occasion of the opening of the Indian Constituent Assem¬
bly I have the honour to extend to you in the name of the National Govern¬
ment of China, my heartiest congratulations. I sincerely hope that your great
Assembly will succeed in laying the solid foundations for a democratic and
prosperous India.”®^

Indians, who had been very critical of the inapcrialist adventures of Japan
throughout her militaristic career and had supported China against Japan, showed
solicitude for Japan in the post-war period. Nehru, who had been very vocal in the
condemnation of Japanese policy in the pre-war and during war time, when asked
by the Japanese newspapers to give a plain advice to Japan on March 27, 1946, sent
a message to the Japanese people and advised them to give up the old dreams of
conquest and expansion and to reject militarism and to make Japan a country of
free democratic institutions. He further advised the Japanese leaders to work for

gaining the goodwill of the Chinese people whom Japan had deeply injured both
materially and spiritually. ‘‘If this policy is followed by Japan”, declared Nehru,
‘‘She will not only gradually heal the deep scars of war but will also cure deeper
spiritual injuries caused to herself and to others and bridge the gulf which now
separates her from other nations. India and other countries of Asia will outlive
yesterdays’ anger and resentment and join hands with Japan in the furtherance of
Asiatic freedom and co-operation within the larger frame-work of world peace .

Nationalist India also looked towards Ceylon, Burma and Malaya and the
Middle Eastern Countries and expressed her solidarity with the national aspirations
of these countries. In a message to the Youths of Ceylon Nehru stressed the need
for close collaboration between India and Ceylon. Reminding them of the close cul¬
tural, racial and religious similarity between India and Ceylon he slated that politi
cal and economic considerations must lead to a closer union betweeri the two neigh¬
bouring nations.®" The Congress Working Committee in July 1946 viewed with con¬
cern the development of the situation in Ceylon relating to the rights and security
and welfare of Indians in Ceylon and urged both the Indian settlers and the Cey¬
lonese Government to find away for settling all disputes in a just and equitaWe
manner and appointed a Committee headed by Nehru to
grievances of the Indian workers in Ceylon.®* On September 27, 194 , e ru
observed that unfortunately there had been for some time past a kind of impasse
with regard to India’s relations with Ceylon ‘‘but we have tned to our utmost, and
we propose to continue trying, to approach the people of Ceylon and the Ceylon
Government in a friendly manner because it is inevitable that Ceylon and India
must pull together in future and we do not want a trace of bad blood between
us”.®® In a press interview on September 27, 1946, Nehru declared Aat India would
follow a very friendly policy towards Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim , .. . ,

JB Kripalani, the President of the fifty-fourth session of Jhe Indian National
Congress in 1946, pleaded for close and the friendly relations with Ceylon and

202

IntUan Naikmaiism and Ada

Burma. Expressing his fellow-feeling with these countrin Kripalani observed,
“Ceylon and India have been good neighbours all along and the ingress Is deter¬
mined to maintain and develop these relations. Indian nationals in Burma must
identify themselves with the people of Burma and mix with them as sugar does
with milk. Knit together in a common friendly relationship, India, Burma and
Ceylon will be in a position to fulfil their historical mission in the creation of a
federation of free Asiatic nations that would constitute a powerful bulwark against
imperialism and exploitation whether of the Western or the Eastern type**.^^

India pledged her full support to Burma when the great Burmese leader Aung
San visited India in January, 1947. He was accorded warm reception in India. In a
statement issued on January 7, 1947, Nehru admired the leadership and heroic deeds
of Aung San and wished him success in his enterprise so that Burma might attain
freedom. Appreciating the Burmese leader's desire to develop friendly relations with
India, Nehru declared that co-operation between India and Burma would be highly
beneficial for the peace of the continent.”*

Ceylonese and Burmese nationalists gave good response to India’s friendly
feelings for them. On September 8, 1946, M.W.H. de silva, Ceylon Government’s
representative in India, wished friendly relations between India and Ceylon.”” U.
Saw, a Burmese leader, in a statement on December 13, 1946 expressed the hope
that India would get her independence without late and an independent India would
be a source of strength to' Asia.*”” When the conflicts between the Hindus and the
Muslims ravaged India and threatened the unity of the country, Aung San in a
statement issued on February 15, 1947, expressed his grave concern that such con¬
flicts would weaken India.*”*

India’s sympathy for the Middle Eastern countries in the post Second World
War period remained as intense and profound as it had been before the war. The
All India Congress Committee in September, 1945 sought to develop common poli¬
cies for defence, trade, economic and cultural development with the countries of
the Middle East.*”'^ In his presidential address to the All Parties’ Shia Conference
in October, 1945, Hosseinbhoy A. Laljee expressed his indignation at the non-
Muslims* control over Palestine and Hejaz and criticised the American policy in
regard to the Jewish immigration in to Palestine.*"” The All India Abrai^Conference
held at Amritsar in October, 1945 condemned the attitude of the British and Ameri¬
can Governments in letting Jews make an encroachment upon the rights of the
Arabs in Palestine.*”'* Maulana Abul Kalam Azad warned the Americans and
British to keep their hands off Palestine. “Indian public opinion’’, Azad declared,
“is solidly with the Arabs of Palestine and if the British take any stand detrimental
to the Arabs, they will greatly resent it’’.*"® He further stated that the suggestion
to divide Palestine into Arab and Jewish states was thoroughly impracticable and
gravely unjast.*"® The Council of Action of the All Parties Shia Conference in
December, 1945 deplored the interference of foreign powers in Iran and demanded
the withdrawal of foreign military forces from Iran.*”*

The Congress Working'Committee In March, 1946 demanded the withdrawal
of foreign armies from Iran and Egypt.*”” On March 15, 1946, Nehru declared in
Bombay that Indian opinion, as a whole, would strongly resent fuy e|pression on
Iran or Turkey by*any power.*””

Lait Phase of India's Freedom Struggle (1945’‘1947)

203

India’s friendly feelings for Arab countries awakened a similar feeling in the
Arab leaders. Attiya, who was in-charge of the Arab office in Britain, told the
pressmen : *‘We have complete sympathy with the Indian struggle for liberation.
We recc^nise the Indian National Congress as the leader of the struggle represent¬
ing both Hindus and Muslims.*’^^" He further stated that of course, the Muslims in
Arab countries had spiritual affinity with the Muslims in India but this did not
mean support for Pakistan.^^^

To solve the Palestine issue a joint Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry
was set up which produced a report in May, 1946 and turned down the proposal
for partition in favour of continuation of the mandate until the hostility between
Jews and Arabs disappeared. 10,000,00 immigration certificates were to be granted
for the Jews. Land transfer regulations were replaced by the free purchase and
lease of lands. The report was criticised by the Arabs because it introduced modifi¬
cations in favour of the Zionists. On July 31,1946, the Anglo-American experts pro¬
duced a Federation plan for dividing Palestine into two autonomous provinces,
Arab and Jewish.^^®

Indians also resented against the pro-Jewish policy adopted by Great Britain
and the United States. The Council of the All India Muslim League in April, 1946‘
noted with dismay the reported news that the Joint Anglo-American Commission
of Enquiry had recommended the admission of 10,00,000 Jews into Palestine and
the partion of Palestine for the purpose of establishing a Jewish national home.
Expressing its sympathy and support for the Arabs and assuring them of all possi¬
ble help in their hour of trial, the Council of the League warned the British Govern¬
ment that any attempt to betray the promises given to the Arabs of Palestine and
Muslims of India and any arbitrary award by the British Government would be
regarded by the Muslims of India as a breach of faith with the Muslim world and
would result in grave consequences to the peace of all countries inhabited by the
Muslims.^” The Working Committee of the All India Muslim League in May, 1946
called upon the British Government to reject the recommendations of the Anglo-
American Commission of Enquiry.Criticising the recommendations of the Anglo-
American Commission of Enquiry and expressing India’s sympathy with the Arabs
in Palestine, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the Congress President, declared that the
report of the Commission had caused widespread discontent throughout the Middle
East and suggested that the rightful solution of the Palestine problem was the
recognition of Palestine as the homeland of the Arabs and Jews who lived there.^^
To exprescs India’s solidarity with the Palestine Arabs, Palestine Day was observed
at Nagpur on May 10, 1946 and ten thousand Muslim workers stayed away from
normal work in textile mills in sympathy with the Arabs in Palestine. The report of
the Anglo-American Commission on Palestine was condemned at Bombay. Female
members of the Calcutta Muslim League passed resolutions against the report of
the Commission. Assam Muslim Association also condemned the^ recommendations
of the Anglo-American Commission on Palestine.^^* The Working Committee of
the All India Muslim League in August, 1946 deplored the attitude of the British
Government towards Palestine issue and expressed its resentment at the recommen¬
dations made by the Anglo-American Commission to dump down 10,00,000 more
Jews in Palestine and viewed with alarm the various reports suggesting the parti-

204

Indian Nationalism and Asia

tioning of Palestine into Arab and Jewish divisions. The Committee further assured
the Arab League, which had taken up the matter of Palestine in its hands, and parti¬
cularly the Arab Higher Committee and its Chairman, that Muslim India would
stand by them and would extend all support possible* in securing Palestine free from
British clutches and putting a stop to the onslaught of the Jewry backed up by the
United States.”’

As the Vice-President in the Interim Government of India, Nehru declared that
India would establish contact with all the neighbouring countries of Asia. “Towards
this end”, he said, ‘‘it was proposed to despatch a Goodwill Mission to the Middle
East".”^’ Abdur Rahman Siddiqi, a member of the Muslim League, who was an
unofliciai observer at the Palestine Conference, issued a statement on January 29,
1947 at London supporting the Arab attitude over Palestine. He warned the British
Government that an anti-Arab decision by the British Government on the Palestine
question might produce unfavourable reactions among the Muslim population of
India.”®

Not content with developing bilateral relations with the nations of Asia, the
Indian National Movement during the last phase of its struggle emphatically urged
the formation of an Asiatic Federation or some sort of union of the nations of the
Asian continent in which India was to occupy an important position. The All India
Congress Committee in September, 1945 declared that Free India would seek close
association with her neighbouring countries, and would favour the formation of
common policies for defence, trade, economic and cultural growth with China,
Burma, Malaya, Indonesia, Ceylon and the countries belonging to the Middle
East.”® On September 9, 1945, Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee envisaged a federa¬
tion of Asiatic nations in which India and China were to play dominant role.^'^^
Speaking at Bombay on September 24, 1945, Sarat Chandra Bose declared that the
ideal of a World Federation was impossible unless it was preceded by a federation
of free Asiatic nations.”® On October 31, 1945, the Congress President, Maulana
Azad welcomed the suggestion of the great Burmese nationalist, Aung San, for
holding a South Asiatic Countries* Conference and added that India would seem to
be a natural venue for such a conference.”® Asaf Ali also welcomed the suggestion
of Aung San for a Conference of subject Asiatic nations and went to the length of
suggesting that a Conference of the representatives of all Asiatic Countries should
be held in India to consider post war developments all over the world.”^

In its Election Manifesto for the election to the Central Legislature, issued in
December, 1945, the Congress Working Committee declared that in international
affairs the Congress stood for the establishment of World Federation of free nations.
Till such time as such a federation took shape, the Election Manifesto further
stated, India must develop friendly relations with all nations, and particularly with
her neighbours. Recalling thousands of years of India’s relations with the countries
of the Far East, South East and Western Asia, the Election Manifesto laid down
that free India should renew those relations. Problems of Security and trends of
trade also demanded closer contacts with these regions.”® In an interview to the
Press on January 1, 1946, Nehru explained his concept of Asian Unity and Asiatic
Federation. To Nehru, Co-ordination of the various countries of Asia was not only
possible, but probable. He admitted that the talk bf an Asian Federation was pre-

Last Phase of India's Freedom Struggle {1945^1947)

205

mature but some kind of closer association between these countries of Asia was
necessary for both defence and trade purposes. Until a wider international order
came into existence, the oppressed and exploited nations of Asia would seek to
protect themselves by holding together in so far it was practicable and presenting a
joint front in the Council of the World. In his opinon, all the Asian nations were
faced by more or less similar problems of defence, establishing democratic institu¬
tions, developing industry and agriculture and the uplift of the living standard of
the masses. He hoped that in solving these common problems, they would gladly
associate with the rest of the world and take help from them provided it did not
involve any element of domination.^^* Speaking at Karachi on January 9, 1946,
Nehru pointed out that it was difficult to organise defence of the countries to the
right and to the left of India without India's co-operation and, therefore, these coun¬
tries and India should come closer together for mutual protection as well as mutual
trade.^^^ On February 10, 1946, Nehru stated that days of national isolation had
gone for ever and added that countries of Asia should promote close associations
among themselves.^^^ A very detailed programme of regional integration in Asia
was discussed by D.S. Nag in his book entitled “Imperialism in South East Asia”,
published in February, 1946. Nag regarded Pan-Asiatic Federation, a need of the
hou^nd urged all the Asiatics to jointly draw up a plan of united compaign tu
achieve freedom of their respective countries—to ensure a durable world peace by
rooting out imperialism from the World—to achieve a stable economic equilibrium
to advance the social and cultural life of more than half of humanity.^-'-*

The theme of Asiatic Federation remained a passion with the Indian leaders.
On April 5, 1946, Nehru declared that old cultural ties and geographical situation of
Asia made it desirable that a federation of Asiatic countries should be fostered.

On September 7, 1946, Nehru stressed the need of close association among the
nations of Asia. Indians were nearer and closer to them than others. He urged the
Indian people to develop close contacts with the nations of Asia and to promote a
union of Asian nations.^In his article entitled “Inter-Asian Relations” published
in October, 1946, Nehru reiterated his desire for an Asiatic Federation and added
that since the last war, closer relations between Asian Countries had become so
absolutely essential that whether the Asian Conference was summoned or not, it
was bound to come and as it was bound to come Indians might as well take a lead
in it because “Which ever way you look at it, India happens to be the centre of
all this. Whether one talks of the Middle East, or Middle West, or South East
Asia, or China, they all impinge on India; all depend on India, economically,
politically and for defence purposes. They can not help looking at India and we
can not help looking at them’’.^*® J.B. Kripalani in his Presidential address to the
54th Session of the Indian National Congress urged for close association between
-.the nations of Asia.'^^

India’s attempts to foster close relations with Asian Countries and to establish
an Asiatic Federation and to bring Asia on the map of the World reached its
Zenith in March-April, 1947 when India, inspite of her subjection to British Rule,
summoned the Asian Relations Conference which was a landmark not only in the
history of India but of the whole Asian Continent. The Asian Relations Conference
was a unique event in the history of Asia in the sense that it was for the first time

206

Indian NatUmaUm and Asia

in the history of this continent that the representatives of the Asian nations sat at
a common table, discussed their problems which more or less the same, expressed
their willingness to live in fraternal bonds and to create some sort of permanent
Asian organisation to further and maintain the bonds existing among the Asian
nations.

Though the Conference was convened from March 23 to April 2, 1947 the
idea of convening such a Conference had been in the air immediately after the
termination of the Second World War. Nehru played a dominant role in conven¬
ing this Conference but evra he admitted that it so happened that *‘We in India
convened this Conference but the idea of such a conference arose simultaneously in
many minds and in many countries of Asia”.^“ The authentic report of the Con¬
ference made it clear that it was difficult to trace from the available records who
first gave public expression to the general desire among Asian peoples to meet and
confer together. The report further declared, **Suffice it to say that in a special
interview to B. Shiva Rao, correspondent to the Mandie^er Guardian and the
Hindu on December 25, 1945, at Allahabad, Nehru explained how an Asian Con¬
ference could be helpful to the understanding of Asian’s problem and to the promo¬
tion of co-operation among Asian people”.*®* Talking to B. Shiva Rao, Nehru
expressed his desire to summon an Asian Conference for which India was to be
the venue. To remove any doubt about the Conference,. Nehru pointed out that
such a Conference would not be against any other country either America or Soviet
Russia.*®®

Nehru pursued the matter and when in March, 1946, he visited South East
Asian Countries, he carried the concept of summoning such a Conference to them.
During his stay in Malaya in March, 1946, Nehru pledged that once India was free,
“every ounce of her energy shall be used for the freedom of all subject nations”,
and further declared that “someday, every Indian arm will be a strong arm, and
those arms will fight for Asiatic freedom”.*®’^ On his return, he announced that the
desire for holding an Asian Conference had been expressed to him by Aung San,
of Burma*®® and Soekarno of Indonesia *®’ Thereafter, Nehru influenced the Indian
Council of World Affairs to take up the cause of convening an Asian Conference.
The Executive Committee of the Indian Council of World Affairs accepted the
proposal and began to make its efforts for the purpose. The motive behind sum¬
moning the Conference at the behest and under the auspices of the Indian Council
of World Affairs was the desire to make the Conference non-partisan and non¬
governmental, a Conference devoted to the study of the common problems of the
Asian nations *®®

Two problems dogged the organisers from the very outset. Who were to be
invited ? What was to be the agenda of the Conference ? It was ultimately decided
that ail Asian countries would be invited. It was also decided to invite observers
from cultural institutions in certain non-Asian countries induding Australia, New
Zea-land, Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union. Each Asian Country
was to send a joint delegation of sixteen scholars, four govwnmental observers and
individual scholars. The final agenda for the Conference was divided into five sec¬
tions or groups. Group ‘A* dealt wiffi National Movements for Freedom. Group
*B' was to discuss Racial Problems and Inter-Asian Migration. Group *C* was to

Last Phase of Indices Freedom Struck {1945-1947) '' 207

hold discussion on Economic Development and Social Services. Group *D* discus*
sed Cultural Problems and Group ‘E’ considered the Status of Women and their
Problems. In the final agenda, the item concerning defence and security questions
was droi^>ed because it had more than an Asian incidence as the security and
defence of Asia could not be discussed in isolation from World security and
drfencc.^*^

In all 28 Asian Countries including Egypt and Soviet Asian Republics sent
their representatives. Japan was not permitted by the United States Occupation
Authorities in Japan to participate in the Conference and Syria, Lebanon, Trans¬
jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iraq did not accept individual invitations.
Observers from U.N.O., the Arab League, Institutes of International Relations
from Australia, Moscow, London and New York came to attend the gathering of
the Asian leaders.^^^

The Asian Relations Conference started its deliberations on March 23, 1947 in
Delhi. To avoid the controversial issues and to maintain an atmosphere of cordiality
and unanimity the Steering Committee of the Conference at its meeting on March
23, 1947, took two important decisions which provided that the Conference would
not adopt resolutions but would merely accept a report representing the consensus
of opinions expressed in the various discussion groups into which the Conference
was to be divided. According to the second decision a Sub-Committee of fifteen
persons was set up to consider the advisability of establishing a permanent
institute

Throughout the Conference it was the Indian delegation, consisting of the pro¬
minent person from all walks of life of the nation, that dominated the Conference
and was more concerned with the task of promoting solidarity among the Asian
nations. Sir Sri Ram, the Chairman of the Reception Committee, pointed out that
there was wide field in which all the Asian countries could work together. In all
these things in which the interests of the Asian countries were similar, Sir Sri Ram
called upon the delegates to co-operate together, pool their experiences, knowledge
and resources for mutual benefit. He further maintained that though the Conference
was not official or governmental yet the agreements or understanding which the
delegates would arrive at, even if informal, and not legally binding on governments,
he hoped, would not command any less weight with the Governments and peoples
of the participating countries.^^^

Nehru, who was the guiding spirit behind this Conference, in his inaugural
address to the Plenary Session of the Conference declared in an eloquent manner
his deep urge for Asian solidarity and some sort of Asiatic Federation. His inaugu¬
ral address began by asking “what has brought you, the men and women of Asia,
here ? Why have you come from various countries of this mother continent of ours
and gathered together in this ancient city of Delhiand he himself replied that it
was some deeper urge that brought the Asian representatives in the Conference.
Speaking in the tone of a renascent Asian leader Nehru declared that Asia, which
had been subjected to the imperialist control for long, was prepared to play its role
in the World affairs. Explaining the objectives of the Conference, he said that the
leaders of Asia were meeting in this Conference of confer together about the pre¬
sent and the future and lay the foundation of their mutual progress, well-being and

208

In^n Nationalim aadAsta

friendship. One of the marked characteristics of his inaugural speech was that he
held the European imperialists responsible for isolating the Asian nations from
one another. He, however, emphatically asserted that the artificial isolation created
by the European imperialists was breaking down as the old imperialisms were
fading away. The Conference represented this new move and Asian representatives
were meeting at the Conference as old friends long parted. He laid stress on the
inherent unity of Asia and very emphatically declared that culturally, socially and
economically all the Asian countries were bound together and they faced similar
and common problems. It was this inherent unity of Asia and its realisation on the
part of the leaders of Asia that had made the Conference possible.^^^

One thing which Nehru most emphatically stressed in course of his address
was the need for greater co-operation among the Asian nations and the need for
Asian Federation. He said : *‘We have arrived at a stage in human affairs when the
ideal of One World and some kind of a World Federation seem to be essential,
though there are many dangers and obstacles in the way. We should work for that
ideal and not for any grouping which comes in the way of this larger world group.
We, therefore, support the United Nations structure which is painfully emerging
from its infancy. But in order to have One World, we must also, in Asia, think of
the Countries of Asia co-operating together for that larger ideal.”^'’® Considering
mutual understanding and regional co-operation in Asia a step forward in the
direction of the establishment of the ideal of One World, Nehru suggested the set¬
ting up of an Asian Institute for the study of common problems and a School of
Asian studies. He explained that interchange of visitors and exchange of students
and professors would do much to better the knowledge of one of the other and help
the growth of mutual understanding between the Asian nations.^^^

To Nehru, the Asian Relations Conference was an event which awakened the
Asians from the deep slumber they had been taking during the last two hundred
years and the Conference was the proclamation of their awakening. He envisaged
a new role for awakening Asia in World Affairs and said that in the hours of Crisis
in World history, Asia would necessarily play a vital role. The countries of Asia
could no longer be used as pawns by others, they were bound to have their own
policies in world affairs. He further declared that there could be no World peace
unless Asia was free and unless Asia played her part.^*^

In this Asian Conference and in the body that was to emerge from it, Nehru
put forth the claim of India to be the centre of things in Asia. However, he played
down the term leadership and said : **In this Conference and in this work there
are no leaders and no followers. All countries of Asia have to meet together on an
equal basis in a common task and endeavour. It is fitting that India should play
her part in this new phase of Asian development. Apart from the fact that India
herself is emerging into freedom and independence. jShe is the natural centre and
focal point of the many forces at work in Asia. Geography is a compelling factor,
and geographically she is so situated as to be the meeting point of Western and
Northern and Eastern and South East Asia.^^*

While advocating regional co-operation in Asia and envisaging a dominant
role in it for India. Nehru was anxious to remove the suspicion that had caught
the minds of the European and Aiherican Governments that such a move aimed at

Last Phase of India's Freedom Struggle (1945-1947)

2td9

an Asiatic bloc directed against Europe and America. “We have no designs against
anybody'% Nehru emphatically stated, “ours is the great design of promoting
peace and progress all over the World. For too long have we of Asia been peti¬
tioners in Western courts and Chancelleries. That story must now belong to the
past. We propose to stand on our own legs and to co-operate with all others who
are prepared to co-operate with us. We do not intend to be the playthings of
others*’.^®®

Another Indian delegate, Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, in her presidential address to
the Plenary Session of the Conference referred to the inherent unity of Asia.
Addressing the delegates as her Comrades and Kindred of Asia, Mrs. Naidu main¬
tained that they had assembled to take an indestructible pledge of the Unity of
Asia so that the world in ruin could be redeemed from sorrow, unhappiness,
exploitation, misery, poverty, ignorance, disaster and death.^^^ She urged the Asian
delegates to dream a common dream and hoped that Asia would not be a continent
of enemies rather she would be a continent of fellowship of the world. She further
denied that the aim of the Conference was an Asiatic bloc against Europe or was a
conspiracy of Asian people against Western Civilisation

Need for closer co-operation and mutual collaboration, which was emphasised
by the Indian leaders at the Conference, was also stressed by other Asian delegates
who echoed sentiments of fellow-feeling and oneness of Asia in the deliberations of
the Conference. The Afghan delegate, Abdul Majid Khan, very emphatically ^id :
**We have to live together if we are to live at all.*’^'’’'* J. P. Dorji of Bhutan wished
success to the Conference which, he hoped, was to become a symbol of love and
bond of the solidarity of the Asian continent.^®* General Aung San, who could not
be present at the Conference, in his message to the Conference conveyed greetings
of the Burmese people and the Burma Government. To him, this Conference seem¬
ed to be the cornerstone of the edifice of an All-Asian Unity and solidarity and he
optimistically remarked that the Conference would be guided in its task by a new
consciousness of the “Oneness of Asia and also by the supreme necessity on the
part of all the countries of Asia to stand together in weal or woe.”^®^ To Bandar-
naike of Ceylon this Conference was only the beginning of something much greater
—a federation of free and equal Asian countries.^®® Chang Yin-Fun, delegate from
China, hoped that this Conference would enable the Asian peoples to understand
one another better and this better understanding of one of the other would help
the Asian nations to build on deep and firm foundations the peace and well-being
of Asia and the World. To the Chinese delegate the Conference was to work
as a bridge between Asia and the rest of the world.^®’ In his message to the
Conference Dr. Bhutan Shariar, Prime Minister of Indonesia, expressed the hope
that the Conference would exercise great influence in bringing together the govern¬
ments and the people of the Asian countries.^®® Mai The Chau, delegate for Viet¬
nam, was hopeful that the Conference would contribute to lasting peace, indivisible
and constructive freedom and democracy and would lay the foundation of a frater¬
nal and fruitful co-operation among the Asian peoples. In the end he warned the
delegates : “We have used enough words about Asian unity. Now let us act.
Hugo Bergmann, on behalf of the Jewish delegation from Palestine, declared : “We
are happy and proud to take part as old Asian peoples at this Conference and

indian Nationalism and Asia

wc strive to be a loyal member of this great family of nations.’’^® Abdur Rahman
Apam Bay, Secretary*General of the Arab League, from Cairo, associating himself
with the Conference, wrote ; “In the namg of millions of Arabs I salute this first
great Congress which demonstrates to the World the awakening of the peo{des of
Asia, so long held powerless to exert full moral and political influence in World
affairs.”^*^ A delegate from Philippine thought that the Conference had laid thd"
foundation of closer intercourse and lively contacts between the countries of Asia.
An Iranian delegate convincingly remarked that through the tireless efforts of the
Conference the Asian delegates had laid the foundation of a very durable organisa¬
tion which would unite the Aslans spiritually and culturally and lead the Asians to
solidarity and goodwill. Sutan Shariar called upon the Asian nations to make
attempts for One Asia which would, he hoped, in time expand into One World.^*®

After the Plenary Session the Conference split up into groups. Group A
discussed National Movements for Freedom in Asia. The Chairman of Group A
said that the object of the group discussion was to devise ways and means by which
the various countries could win the principle of self-determination. A Ceylonese
delegate stressed the need for economic fre^om and urged the various countries of
Asia to unite for mutual co-operation in this matter. A Chinese delegate suggested
exchange of information on existing problems in various countries. An Indonesian
delegate suggested that the Conference should propose the formation of an Asian
Press Agency. Throughout the discussion there was a widespread urge in Asian
countries to terminate foreign domination. V.K R.V. Rao and K. Santhanam from
India suggested that Asia as a whole should develop the attitude that imperialism
could not effectively continue to dominate any part of Asia for any length of time.^®®

An important feature of the group discussion was the suggestion of a Malayan
delegate to form a Neutrality Bloc in Asia. Mr. Thivy, the Malayan delegate, urged
upon the various Asian Countries to adopt Neutrality Bloc and refuse to assist any
imperialist power by raw materials, dock-yards, arms etc. He believed that Asia
could be demobilised and consequently world wars could be prevented, “A Neutra¬
lity Bloc”, he declared, “was meant both to prevent assistance reaching the alien
powers in their suppression of freedom struggles and to immobilise the areas cover¬
ing the territories of Asia in the event of a possible world war”. But the suggestion
of the Malayan delegate was rejected by India, Burma and Indonesia.^®®

Although the suggestion for the formation of a Neutrality Bloc was rejected,
the delegates from Burma, Malaya, Indonesia and other countries were one on the
point that no Asian country should give any direct or indirect assistance to any
colonial power in its attempt to keep any Asian country under subjection.^*® When
Nehru said that he saw no way except moral support in which India could help
other Asian nations,*** a Malayan delegate bluntly said, “We do not know what
you mean by moral aid. Otherwise we should go back to our countries and say—
‘Well, we have a vague nation that we all want to unite and fight but nothipg
tangible has been proposed’.”**’ A delegate for Vietnam emphatically stated that
what was needed in Asia was not a neutrality bloc but a fighting federation to pro¬
tect Asian freedom.***

The discussions in Group A revealed that inspite of the repeated appeals of
the Chairman for restraint, the Conference discussed political problems. India an d

tjost Phase of India's Freedom Struggle (J94S’1947) ill

China came in for severe criticism by their neighbouring small countries who feared
their domination. Despite all these odds, the group discussion served one purpose in
helping the nations to know one another's problems and organised the pent up
forces in Asia which desired an early termination of Western imperialism.

Group B of the Conference discussed Racial problems and Inter-Asian Migra¬
tion. It was here that the first rift occured in the lute of Asian unity. Burma,
Malaya and Ceylon expressed their concern over the attitude of Indian and Chinese
communities residing in these countries. However, the group meeting discussed the
ways and means to eliminate racial conflicts and to promote understanding. The
meeting suggested that there should be simple nationality law and that there should
be complete religious freedom of ail citizens, legal equality of all citizens, no public,
social disqualification of any racial group. The discussions also urged the settlers in
alien countries to work with the indigenous population and to co-operate with them
in the progress of the country.”®

The Group *C* of the Conference discussed the item that related to Economic
Development and Social Services. The item also included the following sub-topics,
namely, translation from Colonial to National economy. Agricultural Reconstruc¬
tion and Industrial Developments and Labour Problems and Social Services.
Discussions on the first sub-topic revealed the deep urge among the Asian nations
to unite for their economic development. A delegate for Burma proposed that Asian
nations should concentrate upon a common plan for the general economic develop¬
ment of Asia as a whole and South East Asia in particular. Bandamaike of Ceylon
favoured the creation of regional co-operation among the nations of Asia for their
economic development. Group discussions and consensus were divided. Some dele¬
gates favoured the creation of an Asiatic Bloc for economic growth of Asia. Others
rejected it.”® Despite this difference of approach, the discussions suggested that
there should be exchange of information relating to the terms and conditions of
foreign borrowing. The report said that efforts should be made for co-operation and
understanding in particular regions for the planning of mutually advantageous
development programmes and that the Asian nations should take concerted action
to implement the policies of the international organisations.^’^

While discussing the problems of agricultural reconstruction and industrial
development, an Indian delegate suggested that it would be very useful if an attempt
was made by Asian countries to meet and discuss the continents food problem. He
suggested that in this regard they could co-operate with the World Food Council.
It was the general consensus that there was a great deal of room for co-operative
action among the Asian nations for their scheme of agricultural reconstruction.
Exchange of information and experience in regard to research, methods of cultiva¬
tion, pest control and other agricultural experiences was suggested.^’® So far the
industrial development of Asia was concerned the group discussion urged the Asian
nations to co-operate with each other and to utilise the specialised agencies of the
U.N.O. to realise the aim of the industrial development of Asia.'’®

The Group C also discussed labour problems and social services. It was
agreed that there should be collection and interchange of statistics and information
on labour matter in different Asian Countries. A kind of labour code for certain
homogenous economic social regions was also suggested. The report of the Group

212

Indian Nationalism and Asia

C discussions admitted that except a few regions in Asia the rest of the continent
was in need of transformation in the matter of health, hygiene, housing and educa*
tion. The report stated that in this matter Asian nations could learn a great deal
from each otber.”^

The Group D discussed Cultural problems and the means and ways through
which Asian nations could be brought to a common platform. The discussions wdre
marked by Pan-Asian slant. All the delegates were proud of the cultural heritage of
Asia and all of them thought of reviving that old great cultural heritage which was
common to all. Furthermore, all seemed to be anxious to devise means for maintain¬
ing the cultural unity of Asia. The Group’s consensus was to develop scientific and
cultural co-ordination in different countries of Asia. The report suggested collabora¬
tion amongst libraries and museums, translation of classical and other significant
works from one language to another, production of suitable documentary educa¬
tional films of common interest, appointment of teachers of various Asian languages
by the countries concerned, comparative study of Asian cultures at the universities
and at the proposed school of Asian studies, consideration of the equivalence
and recognition of University degrees and diplomas. The report further suggested
the holding of Inter-Asian Students* Conferences, setting up of an Inter-Asian phy¬
sical, cultural and educational association and of an Asian broadcasting station.^^^

The Group ‘E’ discussed the status of Women and Women’s movements. The
Group discussed questions relating to the position of Women, polygamy. Women’s
rights, status, voting right, marriage, divorce, universal adult franchise, equal oppor¬
tunities for both sexes in the matters of professions, educational facilities and public
services. A delegate for India suggested the formation of an organisation to main¬
tain contacts already established among the women of Asia. It was proposed that
the Asian Women’s Conference be revived, that a liaison committee be established
with representatives of Asian women from various countries on it.”®

There was a general desire for close co-operation and the feeling of Asian
solidarity was the marked characteristic of all the deliberations at the Conference.
The Conference did not end simply as a debating society but started an Asian
Relations Organisation with a Provisional General Council of which Nehru was
chosen as the President. The proposal for the creation of an Asian Relations
Organisation was promoted by the belief of the Asian nations that the peace of the
world, to be real and enduring, must be linked up with the freedom and well-being
of the peoples of Asia. It was ’therefore’ realised that the Conference must be main¬
tained and strengthened and the work begun at the Conference continued, efficiently
organised and effectively developed. The Objectives laid down for the Asian Rela¬
tions Organisation were to promote the study and understanding of Asian prob¬
lems and relations in their Asian and World aspect, to foster friendly relations
and co-operation among the peoples of Asia and between them and the rest of the
world, and to further the progress and well-being of the peoples of Asia.^^^

The Asian Relations Organisation was to consist of national units, one in each
Asian Country affiliated to the organisation. The units were to be non-governmen¬
tal in character and were to devote themselves to the study of Asian and inter¬
national affairs. They were not to have party affiliations nor they were to engage
in political propaganda. The work of the Organisation was to be carried out in

Last Phase of India's Freedom Struggle {1945-1947)

213

the countries concerned through their respective national units. It was also decided
that the next Conference would bj held in China in 1949.^'® Thus, the Conference
came to a close with a happy result which was the creation of the Asian Relations
Organisation which was to usher in a new era of mutual co-operation, friendly
relations, cultural fellowship, and close collaboration among the nations of the
Asian continent.

The Asian Relations Conference ended with high hopes and a good deal of
future promises. But behind the apparent successes of the Conference there flowed
the currents of discontent, discord, mutual distrust and bickering which were to
undermine the very significance of the Conference and the unity of Asia which had
been repeatedly proclaimed at the Conference. The Conference could not come up*
to the expectations and the high hopes it had aroused in the bosoms of the
Asian peoples. It exposed several grim facts which stood in the way of Asian unity
for which the Conference was summoned. Why the Asian nations, who had spoken
so much of Asian unity, had considered this Conference a land-mark and had
laboured hard to develop close ties for mutual benefit failed to achieve their objec¬
tives at the very first Conference ? The reasons were numerous and of various
sorts. The Conference was not representative in character in the fullest sense of
the term. Proceedings of the Conference indicated that it was a South and South
East Asian Conference. The Conference was a sort drama in which the actors did
not represent the tastes of the audience, they represented their selves and tastes.
Japan which had been a powerful factor in the making of the history of the conti¬
nent was not represented at the Conference. The Arab World was more or less
unrepresented, except few observers. Furthermore, the delegations in most cases
were representatives neither of the masses of Asia nor even of all the top layer of
informed opinion among their own countrymen. This was due in part to the
haphazard way in which the invitations were issued and in part to the reasons,
known and unknown, that kept many from accepting.”®

A strong protest against the composition of the Vietnamese delegation attend¬
ing the Conference was made by Mai The Chau, Vietnam rcpresenlative in India,
who said that the three Indochinese delegates send by the French colonists to
attend the Conference represented no body but their French masters.^®" Even the
Chinese delegation was not fully representative of the national character because it
did not contain even a single representative of the Communist party which had
become a powerful factor in China by that tirae.^“ Mustafa Momin, leader of the
Muslim Brotherhood and Egyptian Observer to the Conference, questioned the
representative character of the Palestine delegation because it actually represented
Jewish population and the Arabs of Palestine were unrepresented at the Con¬
ference Probably the least representative of their national life were the delegates
from Malaya.*"® Therefore, the suggestions of the Conference, which did not fully
represent the informed opinion in Asian countries, could not have enduring impact
on the future relations of the Asian nations and the purpose of the Conference,
which was to hold free frank discussion of the Asian problems, and to develop
fraternal feelings in Asia, was defeated to a certain extent.

Another major diflBculty with the Conference was the attitude the small nations
of Asia adopted at the Conference. They were distrustful of their powerful neigh-

214

Indian Nationalism and Asia

hours like India and China. Many of them were afraid that integration into some all-
Asian Organisation would mean the end of their political independence before th^
had ever acquired it or had had the sufficient time to enjoy it. A Burmese delegate
unreservedly declared that one day Burmese would be swarmed either by Indians
or by the Chinese. He further declared : "Burma was between two great powers.
It was terrible to be ruled by the Westren power, but it was even more so to be ruled
by an Asian power. Burma was naturally frightened by the possibility that British
imperialism may be substituted either by an Indian or by a Chinese imperialism.^^*
The delegates from Malaya and Ceylon supported the Burmese delegate. Naganathan
of Ceylon contended that there was a natural fear of domination in the countries of
South East Asia from big countries like India and China, not necessarily domina¬
tion by influx of population but fear that economic domination would be a threat
to nationalism in these countries.^® In the very opening plenary session was wit¬
nessed the confrontation between the Arab and Jewish delegates on the issue of
Palestine.”* It was but natural that the Conference could not come upto the
expectations as it had to work in an atmosphere of mutual distrust.

Besides this distrust among the small countries of Asia about their big neigh¬
bours, some delegations played inconspicuous role at the Conference. Indo- China's
two delegations seldom crossed words. The three representatives of Vietnam used
the Conference as a propaganda outlet and as a field for soliciting aid in their
struggle with France, while the three representatives of Cochin China, Combodia
and Laos generally eschewed controversial discussion. Delegates from Siam, Nepal
and Tibet did not play significant role at the Conference. A strange attitude was
adopted by the delegates from the Philippine and Korea. The Filipinos strongly
argued against widespread belief that the United States had exploited them imperia-
listically and pointed with pride to the peaceful way in which the Philippine Repub¬
lic had achieved its nationhood. The Korean delegates, on the whole, seemed so
overwhelmingly absorbed in the national and domestic difficulties as to appear
uninterested in the problems of their fellow-Asians.^*^

So far the role of the Arab League States or the countries of West Asia was
concerned they generally played a negative part in the discussions and even appear¬
ed not to regard themselves as Asians. This attitude of the Arab States was partly
responsible for the Conference's assuming the character of a Far-Eastern rather
than an all-Asian meeting. They opened their lips only when questions were dis¬
cussed that might be used to ventilate their grievances against the Jews in Palestine
and the British in Egypt. They appeared most unresponsive to suggestions for an
Asian organisation. They seemed to have come to the Conference out of mere
politeness and they desired to offend or displease neither Nehru nor the Muslim
League and they were satisfied with working for their interests through the Arab
League. To add further, they found themselves in an embarracing position in which
they might easily have insulted either the Indian Government orthe Indian Muslims,
had they taken any definite stand. Therefore, they played a role that was dubious
in character and dealings

The Arab States' indifference towards the Conference was propelled by the
attitude of the Indian Muslims towards this first gathering of the renascent Asian
leaders. The Muslim League of India had refused to partidpate in the Conference

last Phase of Indites Freedom Struggle < 1945-1947) 215

because of **the so>called Asian Relations Conf^ence which has been sponsored by
the Indian Council of World Affairs, ostensibly for the purpose of fostering cultural
relations between Asian countries is a thinly disguised attempt on the part of the
Hindu Congress to boost itself politicdly as the prospective leader of Asiatic
people”.^** The Muslim League considered it absurd and ridiculous for the Cong¬
ress, which was described to be the Hindu political party, to pose as the Sole
Cultural representative of this vast Sub Continent and its attempts to mislead
Asiatic countries into accepting it as such was nothing short of fraud. The League
claimed that the Muslims yielded to no other section of the people of India in
their goodwill towards their Asian neighbours, nor were they less anxious to forge
with them cultural and other ties but the League was opposed to the manner in
which the Conference had been summoned and to the motives of its sponsors. The
League stated that it was not the proper time to convene a Conference of the Asian
nations when India was going through a period of intense communal strife. The
League also declared that the leaders of the muslim countries, who had associated
themselves with this Conference without ascertaining the views of Muslim India,
were unwillingly doing a disservice to the Muslim cause in India at a time when the
Indian Muslims were engaged in a struggle for their very existence against the
^‘Indian Hindu Congress”.^®®

Such sentiments were echoed by the League newspapers and the Muslims
under the umbrella of the League. An article entitled “Genesis of the Asian Con¬
ference” appeared in the Star of India, dated March 25, 1947. In that article it was
alleged that Indian delegates at the conference were the leaders of the “nascent
Hindu imperialism”. It was further stated that at a time when Japan was ruined,
China was in the throes of a bitter Civil War, the Near and Middle East Countries
lacked industrial resources and South East Asia region was underdeveloped, Indian
capitalists with the support of British capital were preparing for establishing their
own dominations. It urged the Middle Eastern Countries to realise the latent impe¬
rialism behind the scene of the Conference and suggested that only a federation of
Pakistan and the Middle East states could eflfectively curb this new danger to world
peace. Warning the Asian nations against what it called Hindu Imperialism, the
article concluded: “A new imperialist beast is being let loose from its cage. It has
already shown its fangs and claws. If it is not warned in time it will make a bloody
mess of its own and others’ liberty. The Asian Conference is only a beginning.”^®^
The Star of India wrote in its editorial that the Asian spirit which seemed to be the
motive force behind the Congress plan was really in a very carefully camouflaged
fashion the caste Hindu counterpart of the Japanese brand Pan-Asia Movement to
secure the monopoly of the righ* to dominate Asia and exploit her markets and its
vast economic resources to satisfy the greed of the Hindu capitalists, the real
powers behind this organisation.^®® These sentiments expressed by the Muslim
League and the League papers, before and during the Conference meetings, left their
psychological impact on the Arab Countries. Hence the Arab countries decided not
to associate themselves fully with the working and objectives of the Conference
because this would have offended their co-religionists in India for which they were
not prepared. Consequently, the representatives from the Muslim states of the Middle
East played, no doubt, deliberately a minor and a non-committal role in the

216 Indim Nationalism and AsUi

Conference. Hence the Conference lost much of its significance for the Middle
Eastern Countries.

The greatest single factor which impeded the creation of an effective Asian
organisation to carry out the work of the Conference was the rivalry between India
and China, which caused a rift in the lute of Asian Solidarity and it was to deepen
in the years that followed. With the termination of the Second World War a new
landscape emerged in Asia. China was accepted as one of the major powers, atleast
by Britain and U.S.A., at Cairo Conference in'1943 and at San Francisco Confe¬
rence in 1945. India, too, was emerging from her long suffering and the horizon of
India seemed clear as the British had decided to hand over power to Indian hands.
All these developments transformed the landscape in which the old relations bet¬
ween India and China seemed untenable and tended to take a new turn. It was
the reason that the Chinese delegation at the Conference pursued the most intere¬
sting and involved tactics.^®® Chinese delegates did not appreciate or relish the pre¬
sence of the Tibetan delegation at the Conference and since the Tibetan delegates
scarcely participated in the discussions, the Chinese did not come in open criticism
for the Tibetan. However, the Chinese protested against a map of Asia, which was
displayed in the Conference Hall and in which Tibet was shown as a separate state.
George Yen, who was then the Director of the European Affairs in China and who
attended the Conference as an observer, complained to Nehru against the map and
the map was removed.*®"* Chinese delegates felt that through this Conference India
desired to be recognised as the cultural leader of the new Asia. To this end, China
was evidently opposed. It was this fear of India being recognised as the cultural
leader of Asia that resulted in the over cautious attitude of the Chinese delegation.
Throughout the Conference Chinese representatives lost no opportunity of saying
that all nations in Asia were equal, that there was no question of leadership ; that
the Conference had come into being as it were spontaneously.*®® But the principal
task of the Chinese delegation at the Conference was to see that India did not “run
away with leadership of the Conference”,*®* and consequently they conducted a
relentless backstage compaign to forestall any such eventuality. The Conference had
before it the proposal to create a permanent organisation to continue the works of
the Conference, to maintain the contacts forged at the Conference and to develop
more intimate contacts among the peoples of Asia. “It was in regard to the chara¬
cter and locale of the permanent Asian organisation”, wrote the observers, “that
the leaders of Asia’s two greatest nations locked horns’*.*®'^

The first meeting of the Sub-Committee to enquire into the advisability of a
permanent institute met on March 25, 1947. Whereas Indian delegation on this Sub-
Committee consisted of five persons, Burma, Ceylon, China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran,
Malaya, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan and Palestine each had one member on the Sub-
Committee.*®® From the very outset there was sharp difference of opinion as to whe¬
ther any central organisation should be formed. India, Ceylon, Burma and Iran seem¬
ed in favour of the creation of a permanent organisation. The delegates from China,
the Philippine and Afghanistan were opposed to it on the ground that the time was
not ripe for such a development and they would have to consult their parent organisa¬
tions before any commitment on this issue. The Chinese delegation suggested to
wait for the more representative second Conference, which was to be held in China,

Last Phase of India's Freedom Struggle {1945-1947)

217

before taking any definite stand.'®® However, it were Nehru’s constant efforts that
bore fruits. An atmosphere favourable for the establishment of a permanent organi¬
sation was created when Mahatma Gandhi addressing the delegates on April 1,
1947, urged the representatives from the various Asian countries to meet yearly or
once in two or three years.*'®® It was after much labour pain that the Conference
delivered the sickly child of the Asian Relations Organisation to continue the works
begun at the Conference. But this permanent organisation ceased to be an effective
organisation on account of the negative attitude of the Chinese who wanted to fore¬
stall the move as any organisation that would have been born of the Conference
would have been dominated by India because of India’s being the convenor of the
Conference. Furthermore, the Chinese had no wish to be tied to an organisation in
which India was predominant. Their tactics at the Conference was to keep India’s
status within bounds. No more did the Indians wish to surrender any power to the
Chinese. They were altogether distrustful of the possibility of close political bonds
with a China whose political colour and foreign political orientation were uncer¬
tain.^®' Countries of South East Asia and the Middle East assisted China in this
conspiracy and the Arab states did not evince any real interest in the establishment
of a strong, permanent Asian organisation. Actually, besides the Indians no group
of delegates seemed vitally interested in establishing a permanent organisation.'®^
Enumerating the difficulties, the Asian Relations Conference had to face in the
creation of a permanent organisation to promote cultural co-operation among the
Asian nations. William Henderson wrote in December 1955 : “Neither the Indians
nor the Chinese were prepared to concede leadership to the other, the Arabs were
uninterested and the South East Asians frankly afraid that sush an agreement would
mean the end of their freedom, almost before it had been won.”'®® Thus, faced
with the hostility of China, the distrust of South East Asia and the indifference of
the Middle Eastern Countries, India could not erect any kind of Asian structure
worthy of the name and effective in practice.

The failure of the Conference to create an Asian organisation was caused by
the attitude of the delegates at the Conference who seemed to be more interested in
One World than in any Asian organisation. Throughout the Conference stress was
laid on the World Organisation for which the United Nations was to be utilised.
Werner Levi wrote that the emphasis on One World seemed to have originated out
of the dislike of any continental organisation. It was a way of saying that an all
Asian organisation was not wanted. The Governments of Ceylon and Thailand
echoed such sentiments. The Prime Minister of Ceylon, Senanayake, indicated that
the only grouping his country wanted to join was British Commonwealth. The
Government of Thailand repeatedly declared that the United Nations was the only
organisation its country wanted to join. These declarations generated a suppressed
enthusiasm in the breasts of the Asian leaders for an Asian organisation.'" ' Even
Nehru was heard emphasising much upon the United Nations than upon an Asian
organisation.'"® These tendencies indicated that there was too much individualistic
nationalism and not enough Asianism in the minds of the Asian leaders.

The only tangible result of the Conference, which was the Asian Relations
Organisation, was a timid adventure having no future. The organisation designed to
foster friendly relations and co-operation among the peoples of Asia failed to do

218

Indian Nationalism and Asia

the either and met an early end. Reasons were the vague approach of the Asian
nations. Its final form was not decided and it was to be finalised by a Council con*
sisting of twenty-two nations which could not meet to review its final form. The
Conference had decided that there would be two General-Seo’etaries, one Indian
and one Chinese, but the Chinese was never appointed. It was also decided that
the next Conference would be held in China but this did not happen. The startling
chinges in the Chinese mainland made it impossible for the Nanking regime to
spare time and resources for such external matters. The Nanking regime was fight¬
ing a life and death struggle against the communists, who seemed to have a better
future and prospect, and thus pre-occupied with her own problems China could not
think of convening it. Furthermore, the Asian Relations Organisation could have
been kept alive in India if Nehru had shown his enthusiasm which he had shown
earlier. But the experiences at the Asian Relations Conference and the distrust of
India by the Asian neighbours had made Nehru reluctant about any Asian confe¬
rence. The Asian Relations Organisation had structural defects too. Long before,
at the time of the Conference some observers had warned that the permanent
organisation, which had no central secretariat and no clear directive and which no
country but India seriously wanted, would be paralysed if the Indians failed to give
it effective leadership.^"** Krishnalal Shridharani, an Indian Journalist, wrote that
the Asian Relations Organisation was going to be a consultative body without a
central secretariat. This would, he warned, result in occasional shows, but not in
sustained research and exchange of information.*^"^ This was what actually happen¬
ed to the Asian Relations Organisation. Actually, the Asian Relations Organisation,
which had an inauspicious beginning, went to the wails due to the indifference and
lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Asian nations and the ineffectiveness of the
national units. However, the shadow of the Asian Relations Organisation maintain¬
ed its ghostly but feeble appearance till as late as June, 1955, when the Bandung
Conference finally put an end to it. Thus, the first all Asian organisation, which had
started with high hopes of Asian collaboration, met an early end.

The Asian Relations Conference failed to give any concrete shape to Asian
solidarity partly because the Conference had started to erect the magnificent build¬
ing of Asian solidarity on a base which was not strong enough to sustain the load
of sudi a great task. Talks of Asian solidarity partly originated from the common
dislike by the Asian nations for western imperialism which was the common enemy
of all the colonial peoples in Asia. But Asian Unity was not to survive if it was a
unity generated by the opposition to the Western Imperialists. With the progressing
achievement of independence and the gradual withdrawal of Western domination,
the strongest force underlying solidarity was disappearing. Each of the independent
nations was anxious to build its own future and the cold war later on drew the
very stimulus of Asian solidarity. The progress had begun after the Second World
War when the Soviet Union and the United States started to woe rather than
attempted to dictate to Asia. These tactical strategy withdrew the reason for the
existence of solidarity and they introduced an element of discord through the
necessity of choosing one or the other side.""" '

The Asian Relations Conference attempted to build up Asian solidarity on the
supposed cultural unity of Asia. But the Conference witnessed nascent rivalries

Last Phase of Indians Freedom Struggle (,1945-1947) 219

between small and big countries of Asia. There was no reason to say that the
Chinese should be considered in any way closer to the Middle Eastern Countries
or the Middle Eastern Countries should be considered closer to the South East
Asian nations, even though they dll belonged to the Asian continent. Each country
had its own tradition and cultural heritage. Asia was divided by the very
influences that had made it great^its religion, its rich culture, its ancient empires..
China, India, Persia and Arabia were proud of the distinct and unique history,
tradition and culture, and of the countributions they had made to World civilisation
and were not ready to merge them in an Asian blur which the Asian Relations
Conference desired to accomplish.^^* Thus any attempt to integrate culturally the
nations of Asia in one framework would have been like rain from the clear sky.
All these proved beyond doubt than an Asian Union was impossible. Werner Levi
very significantly remuked, **On6 merit, the Conference undoubtedly had, was to

show that cannot yet be done in Asia.The Conference marked the apex of

Asian solidarity and the beginning of its deciine”.’^^^

But it would be a harsh judgment and an injustice done to the Conference to
dismiss it as an unworthy gathering. Inspite of its failure to create any regional
integration in Asia or any solid and effective permanent organisation in Asia to
maintain the contacts established at the Conference and to fulfil the high hopes
Asian peoples had nurtured in their hearts, the Conference registered a new note
not only in the history of Asia but also in the history of the Universe. Indian
writers, Press and leaders viewed the Conference as a success. “Within the limited
context of its aims and objective conditions in Asia at that time”, wrote B.G.
Gokhale, “the Conference may be said to have been a success”.'^^^ Robert Payne,
a non-Asian scholar, declared : “In the history of modern revolutionary move¬
ments—the movements that change the course of events-no date could be more
important than that of the Pan-Asiatic Conference held in the spring of 1947, at
the invitation of Jawaharlal Nehru.“®“

The main vdue of the Conference was psychological one. It have the first
opportunity to the pent-up energy of Asia to express itself. It was the Asian
Relations Conference which had for the first time given the peoples' of Asia, an
opportunity to get together and discuss their problems, exchange their ideas and
learn from each other. In doing so, it ushered in an era of promise which in the
fulness of time was to make it possible for the great continent to stand heart to
heart and shoulder to shoulder in weal or woe and in defence of the rich heritage
of its culture and civilisation. For several centuries Asia had been viewed with
contempt by the Western beneficiaries of imperialism. The Asian Relations
Conference marked the revival cf the ancient glory of Asia and aroused the
Asiatic consciousness to realise the significant of its role. Viewed in this sense the
Asian Relations Conference might well be called Asian Renaissance Conference.
The real significance of this Conference was that it was the first outward expression
of the new awakening in Asia and of the need which all the Asian countries felt of
coming closer to one another in the changed political atmosphere of the post-war
world. The Conference gave the impression that wl^never any colonial power
would attempt to re-establish its power in an Asian country it would have to
contend not only with the freedom movement of the country concerned, but with

220

Indian Nationalism and Asia

a' hostile public opinion of the whole of Asia which was awake to the community
of interests of all countries within this great continent and the democratic
aspirations of all its people. Hie Times, London, very realistically stated that the
World had a new force to reckon with the awakened spirit of Asiaf^^

The Conference marked the end of an era of European tutelage and ushered
in a new epoch in which the freedom movements of Asia were bound to triumph.
Two thirds of humanity was made to move and they had set out to accomplish
total freedom from all forms of dominations. Hence, like the United Nations
Charter, the resolution of April 2, 1947, that created the Asian Relations
Organisation, N. S. Junankar believed, would rank as an historic event.^^* The
Conference proclaimed the rebirth of Asia in the family of nations. By recording a
unanimous view that the day for imperial rule in Asia had passed, wrote Nicholas
Mansergh, the Conference hastened the final day of the departure of the ancient
regime. The Conference proved to be the signal of the changed political climate in
Asia in which there was to be no room for political domination. Mansergh further
pointed out that the Conference succeeded in creating a spirit which would make it
dangerous, if not impossible, for any imperial power to try to regain, what had
been lost.‘^“ Truly, the Conference marked the beginning of a new epoch and it was
the outward and visible sign of Asia’s new importance in world affaim. In placing
on record the new status which the continent as a whole had assumed, the
Conference did something both to make Asian peoples politically more self-
consicous and to encourage them to play a greater part in world affairs. K. M.
Panikkar took this Conference as a demonstration of the new awakened spirit of
Asia. To him, the Conference was a significant and unparalleled demonstration of
the political coming of age of Asia. It began as an act of faith and ended as an
achievement of magnitude.-^” Summing up the contributions of the Conference in
the promotion of Asian solidarity Panikkar wrote that even if the Conference had
done nothing more than bringing the peoples of Asia together, it would have
achieved something which had never been done before, but “it did more, it
demonstrated to the World that Asia is back at the high table in the Hall of
Nations, that the mother continent had awakened from her slumber and was ready
to shoulder her burden. It was an unequivocal declaration that Asia was no longer
prepared to remain in bondage or to be the cockpit of the ambitions of other
powers’*.®^’

The Conference was significant in the sense that India was heavily paid by the
Conference for the enterprise in convening this august gathering of the Asian
leaders at a time when she was on the verge of getting independence. India’s
frequent endeavours to speak on behalf of Asia served India by raising her higher
in the esteem of the non>Asian World. The New York Herald Tribune rightly
observed: “Some years hence it may be necessary for any country adopting a major
line of policy in Asia to take into consideration Indian, Chinese and Indonesian
opinion, regardless of whether the policy directly affects all of them’’.®^®

But India’s Asian consciousness was free from any overt ambition for acting as
the leader of Asia. The allegations of the Muslim League, that India through the
Conference, desired to be the leader of Asia and to boost up her image in the
continent, were far from truth, for several Indian delegates iQ^lqding Nehru and

iMst Phase of India's Freedom Struggle {1945-1941) 2il

Mrs. Sarojint Naidu laid stress on the point that all were equals at the Conference.
Nehru emphatically declared in his inaugural address : **In this Conference and in
this work, there are no leaders and no followers. All countries of Asia have to
meet together on an equal basis in common task and endeavour”.^*”

There had been a tendency in certain circles to minimise the significance of
this Conference because it was not an official one and hence its recommendations,
it was said, would not have any influence on the governments of the Asian
countries. Certainly, the Conference recommendations had no governmental
sanctions behind them but the Conference attempted to build up Asian Solidarity
on more sound basis than political one and the basis chosen Were economic, social,
cultural, psychological and geographical in nature. Relations and contacts
developed on the latter grounds were always durable than the relations based on
political and official parleys. The Reverend Garland Hopkins of Washington, who
attended the Asian Relations Conference as a representative of the Churches
Committee on International Affairs, World Council of Churches, repudiated the
tendency to minimise the significance of the Conference on the ground that the
delegates were not official representatives of their respective governments and said
that those who were present at the Conference were workers at the grassroot level,
educators, scientists, labour leaders, social workers. “In the long run”, Mr.
Hopkins believed, “this opinion outweighs that of Governments officials. The real
importance of the Conference lies in the type of people which it is composed of”.®®®
The Asian Relations Conference aroused mixed reactions in the capitals of the
Western countries. In Europe and to a lesser extent in America, the summoning of
the Conference has evoked suspicions.and speculation. The Conference evoked mixed
feelings—dismay and despair in the Jingopoliticians, hope and enthusiasm in the
colonial peoples. For if the underdogs in the East could forge a United front, the
total pressure of that would indeed be irresistable for the imperialist forces who
would have to surrender to the Asian peoples’ demand for freedom.®®^ The News
Chronicle of London expressed this fear and declared that a certain nervousness
had been apparent in European capitals lest some conspiracy for an anti-Western
bloc was being hatched.®®® The New York Times struck a warning that the Western
World will do well to watch carefully, the Asian Relations Conference which might
generate large potentialities and high fears.®®®

But the deliberations at the Conference made it clear that emphasis on close
co-operation among Asian nations did not imply any hostility towards Europe or
America. While there was much anti-imperialist feeling expressed in the speeches
in the Committee of the Conference, there was hardly any anti-European feeling
visible at all. In fact, the attitude towards Europe was distinctly “friendly and tole¬
rant”.®®* It was only after the Conference over that the New York Times report¬
ed with a sense of relief that “the Conference had striven to sidestep any discus¬
sion that might suggest that this Conference was the beginning of a Pan-Asiatic
bloc against white imperialism or Whites generall}’. It has thereby avoided unfavo¬
urable attention from the Western World”.®®® Quite opposite was the comment
from the Soviet Union, although Asian Republics of the Soviet Union had been
invited at the Conference. The Indian expert, Zhukhov, wrote after the Conference:
“The fact is that the Conference in Delhi was financed among other things by

222

Indian Nationaiim and Asia

certain Indian capitalists who as a rule are sot interested in the gifts of culture.

certain circles had set as one of the secret rules of the Conference to try on a new
basis Uie idea of Pan-Asianism and further to make precisdy India as the centre of
the Pan-Asiatic movements. As is well known, the imperi^ist Japan bad formerly
declared hmself as the centre of Pan-Asianism. She exploited it in order of justify
Japanese expansion. Now some one is dreaming of exploiting the Japanese heritage
in his own interest.”^^" This assessmmit of the Conference by the Soviet expert was
baseless and not in keeping with the intentions, proceedings of the Confnrence and
the role played by India at the Conference.

Furthermore, the Asian Relations Conference did not design to establish a Pan-
Asian movement directed against Europe or America. By convening this Conference
India did not intend to create an Asiatic Bloc against the West. It was emphasised
by the various delegations including that of India that any Asian organisation
resulting from the Conference would work under the larger framework of the
United Nations Oiganisation. Nehru rightly said that the Asian peoples had no
designs against anybody. Their aim was to promote peace and progress all over the
World.^^^ Several speakers referred to the ideal of One world. In his address to the
closing Plenary session of the Conference held on April 2, 1947, Nehru very frankly
stated, '*we stand for the United Nations because therein lies some hope of World
Co-operation and World Peace*’.®?®

The study of the period from 1945 to 1947 would reveal that it was a period
whidi marked the heyday of Asian solidarity and mutual collaboration in the exist¬
ing circumstanci» and also the apex of Indian attempts for promoting the goodwill
and good neighbourly feelings among the nations of the Asian continent. During
this period of two years, which followed the end of the Second World War and
which preceded the birth of India as a free and sovereign member in the Family of
Nations, India’s efforts to arouse Asia’s sense of self-respect and her rightful place
among the continents without inciting racial or continental prejudices and discover¬
ing any idea of an Asiatic bloc of Pan-Asiatic movement were crowned with success.
The Asian Relations Conference placed Asia on the map of the World to play an
independent role and kindled a hope of bright future in the bosoms of the Asian
peoples. The failure of the Conference to create an Asian Union or Asiatic Federa¬
tion could not undermine the real significance of the Conference. Later attempts
to develop Asian solidarity and collaboration among the nations of Asia which bore
fruits at the Indonesia conference New Delhi in 1949 and the Bandung Conferen¬
ce of 1955 showed that the Asian nations did not lose their hopes of Asian solidari¬
ty even when their first attempt to forge Asiatic Federation had not been so much
successful. In the post Asian Relations Conference era, talks of Asian solidarity and
attempts made for co-operation among Asian nations bore the imprint of the spirit
generated by the Delhi Asian Relations Conference of 1947. The Conference proved
to be a momentous event in the sense that it laid down the habit in the Asian
nations to meet together, discuss together and think together whenever the need
arose and the objectives laid down before fhe conference provided the ideal and
pattern for the destiny makers of the Asian continent in the years that followed.

Last Phase of India’s Freedom Struggk {1945-1947)

REFERENCES

223

^The Indian Amnal Register, 1945, Vol. II, p. 77.
mid., pp. 285-306.

*V.P. Meoon, op. eit; pp. 218-19.

^R. C. Majumdar (ed). The History and Culture of Indian People : Strug^e for Freedom,
pp. 724-26.

®V.P. Menoa, op. cit., p. 234.
mid., pp. 234-35.

^Christine Dobbin, op. eit; pp. 149-50.
mid., p. 147.

*Harijan, May 26. 1946 (Pyarelal, Mahatma Gandhi, The Last Phase, Vol. I. (Abmedabad,
1956, 58) pp. 214-15.

^®V.P. Menon, op. cit; 246-47.

^'R.C. Majumdar (cd). History and Culture of the Indian People: Struggle for Freedom, p. 740

*®Pyare?al, op. cit; p. 229.

i3Quoted in B.N. Pandey, op. cit; pp. 87-188.

^^V.P. Menon, op. cit; pp. 206-386.

^^Congress Bulletin, November 1. 1945.

i*77ie Indian Annual Register, 1945. Vol. II, p- 17.

”r/ie Amrita Bazar Patrlka, September 30, 1945.

^^Ibid., October 2, 1945.

^mid.

^^The Hindustan Standard, September 30,1945.

“^The Indian Annnai Register, 1945, Vol. II, p. 19.

22//>W., 20.

2*77ie Amrita Bazar Patrika, October 7, 1945.

'-'^The Hindustan Standard, October 18,1945-
23r/;e Amrita Bazar Patrika, October 28,1945.

^mhe Indian Annual Register, 1945, Vol. II, p. 163.

-’’The Amrita Bazar Patrika, October 30, 1945.

28/Ak/.

^*Ibid.

*^The Hindustan Standard. November 1, 1945.

21 The Amrita Bazar Patrika, November 11, 1945.

^-The Times, London, November 15, 1945.

22J.L. Nehru, Btforc and After Independence, p. 377.

2*Durga Das (ed), Sardar Patel's Correspondence, Vol. 11, p* 11.

^^Ibid., p. 13.

2*rAe New York Times, October 29, 1945.

^Ibid.

^The Manchester Guardian, October 16, 1945.

New York Times, October 23, 1945.

^^The Manchester Guardian, October 20,1945.

*mui.

*fThe Amrita Bazar Pmrika.'Novetaher 13, 1945.

imid.

** Congress Bulletin, January 24, 1946.

‘“TAe Indian Annual Register, 1945, Vol. II, p. 184.

4«77ie Star of India, January 21,1946.

Times, London, January 22,1946.

^’^Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 1946, Vol. I, January 21, p. 68.

«/*«., p. 73.
mbid., pp. 73-75.

224

Indian Nationalism and Asia

^^The Star of India, January 22,1$>46*

^'^Tke Indian Annual Register, 19^6, Vol. I, p. 286.

®®Nehra, Before and After Independence, pp. 258-59.

^^Resolutions of the All India Muslim League. Ft'om January 1944 to December 1946, pp. 35*36.
^^Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 1946, Vol. 7, February 12, p. 827.

BONorth China Daily News, March 11, 1947, cited in Ton That Thein, India and South East
Asia 1947-1960, (Geneva, 1965), p. 90.

Indian Annual Register, 1946, Vol. II, p. 98.

“Nehru, Before and After Independence, pp. 385*86.

^^Thc Indian Annual Register, 1946, Vol. II, p. 4.

“/Aid., p. 104.

•*J.L. Nehru, Independence and After : A collection of speeches. (New York, 1950) p. 341.

Asian Relations, being Report of the Proceedings and Documentation of the First Asian
Relations Conference, p. 77.

“TAc Indian Annual Register, 1946, Vol. II, pp. 251-56.

p. 122.

••'■‘T’Ac New York Times, January 1, 1946-

“Quoted in Richard Adloff and Virginia Thompson, Minority Problems in South East Asia,
(1955), pp. 131-32.

•’Quoted in Ton That Thein, op. cit, p. 122.

«®rA^ Times, London, January 4, 1946.

••TAe Indian Annual Register, 1947, Vol. I. p. 26.

'tojhe Amrita Bazar Patrika, January 5, 1947.

’1 The Star of India, January 7,1947.

’-TAe Times of India, January 8, 1947.
t^The Amrita Bazar Patrika, January 14, 1947.
fMhid., January 21, 1947.

’’^Ibid; January 15,1947.

’•TAe Daily Midi, London, January 10, 1947.

’’Cited in Ton That Thien, op-, cit, p. 123.

7*77/e Times, London, January 22,1947.

’"TAe Indian Annual Register, 1941, Vol. I, p. 29.

8»/AW., p. 30.
w/AiV/.

^-The Statesman, March 23,1947.

s^TAc Indian Annual Register, 1945, Vol. II, p. 10.

Congress Bulletin, November, 1945.

“STV/e Amrita Bazar Patrika, Septonber 9, 1945.

^*Ibid., September 30,1945.

B’/AW.

8®Durga Das (ed), Sardar Patel's Correspondence 1945-50, Vol. II., (1972), p. 3.

S9/AW., p. 5.

BOJAc Hindu, November 2, 1945.

^^The Indian Annual Register, 1946, Vol. II, p. 95.

®^Nchru, Before and After Independence, pp. 388*89.

»3/A/d., p. 69.

»'‘TA« Indian Annual Register, 1946, Vol. II, p. 99.

9hmd., p. 154.

Mlbid., p. 257.

»’/A/V/., p. 288.

B^The Amrita Bazar Patrika, January 8, 1947.

WThe Indian Annual Register, 1946, Vol. II, p. 25.

lOo/A/rf., p. 55-

»«QAi</„ 1947, Vol. I, p. 36.

Last Phase of IndUCs Preedom Struggle {1945-1947)

225

ivzThe Indian National Congresst March, 1940 to September, 1946, op. clt‘, p. 46.
loarAe Indian Annual Register, 1945, Vol. II, p. 161.
io»/6W., p. 163.

M&JIte Hindustan Standard, October 1945.

lotThe Indian National Congress, From March, 1940 to September, 1946, op. clt; p. 153.

W«7%e Indian Annual Register, 1946, Vol. I, p. 44.

109/6/V/., Vol. II, p. 163.

iiOThe Hindustan Standard, September 14,194S.
ii®G.E. Kirk. op. cit; pp. 211-14.

^^^Resolutions of the All India Muslim League: From January, 1944 to December, 1946,
pp. 33*34.

pp. 42-43.

Star of India, May 11, 1946.
n^Ibld.

^^’’Resolutions of the All India Muslim League ; From January, 1944 to December, 1946,
pp. 64-66.

iitThe Indian Annual Register, 1946, Vol. II, pp. 252-53.

^^*The Star of India, January 3i0, 1947.

^^’^Congress Bulletin, November 1, 1945.

^^^The Amrita Bazar Patrika, September 9, 1945.

^^"The Hindustm Stemdard, September 25, 19A5.

Indian Annuel Register 1945, Vol. II, p. 24.

^-^The Amrita Bazar Patrika, November 5, 1945.

i2B£)ui-ga Das (ed)., Sardar Patel’s Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 9.

1-9J.L. Nehru, Before and After Independence, pp. 381-84.

pp. 262-63.

128/6A/., p. 364.

t“»D.S. Nag, Imperialism in South East Asia, p. 42.
isojyjehru. Before and After Independence, pp. 258-59.

'“•Nehru, Independence and After, p. 341.

•“•Nehru, “Inter-Asian Relations”, India Quarterly,petober 1964, Vol. II, p. 323.

^^^TTie Indian Annual Register, 1946, Vol. II, pp. 287-88,

Asian Relations, being Report of the Proceedings and Documentation of the First Asian Rela¬
tions Conference, New Delhi, March-Aprit, 1947, (1948), p. 1.
ri^lhid.

isiSThe Manchester Guardian, December 25, 1945.
lit The Times (London), March 20, 1946.

Asian Relations, op. cit', p. 2.

•**G.H. Jansen, op. cit; p. 43.
t’*0Asian Relations, op. cit; p. 2.
pp. 3-4.

•*'G.H. Jansen, op. cit; p. 45.

^*^Asian Relations, op. cit.
i*ilbid., pp. 17-18.

Ms/hW,, pp. 21-22.
wjbid., p. 24.
i« JA/rf., p. 25.
i«/6i/., p. 24.

p. 23.
iw/6W,p.24.

15176W., pp. 27-28.

152/«</., pp. 29-31.
p. 32.

226

ladiem Nationalism and Asia

i^Ibid., p. 35.

p. 38.

iwftw., p. 41.

187/6W.. p. 42.
iw/Wrf., pp. 44-51.
p. 63.
pp. 56-57.
p. 248.

^^^Ibid., pp. 236-41.
i«»/6W., pp. 71-90.
i«*/6W., pp. 85-86.

p. 81.

iw/6lrf., p. p. 77.
i®’G.H. iaosen. op. cit; p. 58.

Relations, op. cit; p. 89.

^*^Ihid., p. 96.

I’o/Wrf.. pp. 113-20.
p. 124.

i»<!/feW.,pp. 137-50.
p. 154.

pp. 162-86.

pp. 188-203.
if^lbid., pp. 219-20.

p. 221.

iw/A/i/.. pp. 156-57.

i7»yirgjaia Thompson and Richard Adloff, “Asian Unity: Force or Facade”, Far Eastern
Survey, Vol. X/1,1947. p. 97.

J^TAe Times of India, March 22, 1947.

181G.H. Jansen, op, cit; p. 69.

18-rAe Star of India, April 4, 1947.

issvirginia Thompson and Richard Adloff, op. cit; p 98.

Asian Relations, op. cit; p. 96.
i^^Ibid., p. 103.

^»«Ibid., pp. 63-64.

isTyjrginia Thompson and Richard Adloff, op. cit; p. 98.
isswemer Levi, op. cit; p. 38.

iB^Resolution of the Muslim League, The New York Times, March 20.1947.
iw/AiV/.

191 TAt' Star of India, March 25, 1947.

March 28.1947. >

issyirginia Thompson and Richard Adloff, op. cit; p. 98.

'-•^Tieh-Tseng Li, The Historical Status of Tibet, p. 195.

i*9Nicholas Mansei^h, “The Asian Conference'* International Affairs, Vol. XXIII, July 1947.
p. 303.

i**Virgiaia Thompson and Richard Adloff, op. cit; p. 98-
^tftihid.

^^^Asian Relations, op. cit; p. 13.

199/6W, p. 176.

*o«7AW.

Werner Levi, op. cit; pp. 37-38.
sosyjrgioia Thompson and Richard Adloff, op. cit; pp. 98-99.

999William Henderson, “Regionalism in South East Asia** International Organisation, Novem¬
ber, 1955.

*®*Wemer Levi, op. cit; pp. 37-39.

Last Phase of Indians Freedom Struggle il945-194 f)

221

^^Astan Retathns, op. cit; p. 25.

206Virgiiiia Hiompson and Richard Adioff, op, ctr, p. 99.

^^The Atnrlta Bazar Patrika, April 5,1947.

2MWemer Levi, op. eiv, p. 42.

Jansen, op. ci7; p. 38.

2*®WerBer Levi, op, cif, p. 39.

Gokhale, “India's Role in Asia**, International Orgmisation, November 1955, p. 19.
*i*Robert Payne, The Revolt of Asia^iVitw York, 1947), p. 6.

Times, London, March 26,1W7.

Junankar, “A^ Relations Organisations" United Asia, 1948, Vol. I, p. 32.
^^^Nicholas Mansergh, op. cif, p. 305.

Panikkar, “Inter-Asian Conference", The Hindustan Review, Vol. LXXXI, 1947,

p. 229.

»«ftW.,p.232.

“*Cited in the Hindustan Standard, April 4, 1947.

Asian Relations, op. cit\ p. 23.

^^'^The Amrita Bazar Patrika, April 7, 1947.

Panikkar, **Inter-Asian Conference'* op. cit; 237*

*2*Cited in G.H. Jansen, op. cit; p. 74.

2237%? New York Times, March 26, 1947.

*24K.M. Panikkar, "Inter-Asian Conference'*, op. cit; p. 231.

2267%^ New York Times, April 2,1947.

22«Citcd in K.P. Karuna Karan, India in World Affairs 1947.50, (1952), pp. 90-91.

Asian Relations, op. cit; p. 24.

228/6/</., p. 248.

CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION

The Central idea of the book rotates around the landable efforts of the Indian
nationalists and their role in the freedom struggle of other Asian nations signifying
the >ear 1947 when India emerged as an independent nation possessing certain de¬
finite values and principles governing the workings of her foreign policy. Study of the
preceding pages would also indicate that Asianism as a marked characteristic of the
Indian outlook had developed since the very beginning of the national consciousness
in India. Informed public opinion in India expressed fellow-feeling with Asian
peoples through public statements, writings and resolutions. In fact, long before
India became free, nationalist leaders of India had realised that the basic problem
of India and Asia was one and the same and that India's struggle for Swaraj was a
part of the liberation movement of Asian countries from Western domination. A long
process of the evolution of Asian consciousness in Indian nationalist thinking had
preceded the emergence of India as a sovereign state in the Family of Nations.
Moreover, the Indian National Congress, the most Asian conscious political associa¬
tion in India, came to assume the reins of administration in independent India. It
was thus in the logic of things that the traditions built up and commitments made
by the Indian National Congress during the struggle for freedom influenced Free
India's Asian policy. She also continued the policy of friendly co-operation with
the Asian neighbours—a tendency which had emerged in the nationalist thinking
from Keshab Chandra Sen to Xawaharlal Nehru.

It is interesting to note that the All India Muslim League, which had a large
following among the Indian Muslims and which had also fought for the cause of the
nation in its own way, came to run the administration in Pakistan and to formulate
her foreign policy. Beyond doubt, the Muslim League lacked a well-knit Asian
policy. Nevertheless it evinced casual interest in the affairs of the Asian countries in
genera] and Muslim countries of the Continent in particular. Moreover, the Muslim
League's attitude towards Palestine issue was identical with that of the Indian
National Congress. Thus the Muslim League also left a pattern of Asian policy
which governed, to an extent, the foreign policy makers in Pakistan in their appro-
aches to the Muslim countries of Asia.

Indian leaders expressed their fellow-feeling with Asian countries b^ co-ordinat¬
ing India's struggle foii.freedom with the similar movements in Asia, by champion¬
ing the cause of Asia and by adt'ocating regional integration in Asia. All the
nationalist leaders in India from Keshab Chandra Sen to Gandhi and Nehru

Conebaton

279

impressed upon the people of India to get into the habit of looking at India’s
struggle for independence as a part of the liberation of Asia. The Indian leaders
thought that India held the remedy for Asian slavery. If India became free, they
believed, the whole edifice of Western imperial system in Asia would collapse like
a pack of cards. Indians felt a genuine sympathy for the enslaved and exploited
nations of Asia. Being the most politically conscious country among the enslaved
nations of Asia India inspired the other countries of Asia in their demand for
national self-determination. Especially the countries of South-East-Asia derived
much inspiration from Indian National Movement and looked to India for sym¬
pathy and moral support Leaders of Nationalist India, too, were inspired by Japan
and China and the freedom struggles in other parts of Asia. Thus there was much
of give and take of ideas between the national movements of India and those of the
Asian countries. _

Throughout the period under review the Indian National Movement pursued a
policy of friendship, mutual co-operation and collaboration with the Asian neighb¬
ours Since most of the Asian countries were under Western domination of one form
or the other and had national self determination as their ideal, a sense of comrade¬
ship developed among the similarly placed Asian nations. Indian leaders thought that
if national self-determination was inalienable ideal for India, it must be equally nece¬
ssary for all nations suffering under foreign rule. Indian leadership was wise enough
to realise that India’s struggle for freedom was closely associated with the similar
movements in other Asian countries. A fraternal feeling with oppressed nations of
Asia emerged in India’s political thinking and became the marked characteristic of
India’s outlook during and after her struggle for Swaraj. The practical foundation of
Asian Solidarity was the common Asian opposition to Western imperialism and
racial discrimination. India took the lead in forging such friendly contacts with the
Asian people. Leaders of India desired to live at friendly relations with all the
countries of Asia irrespective of their religious, social or political set up. But the
concomitant of India’s Asianism was anti-imperialism. India was eager to have good
neighbourly relations with ail the Asian people but her anti-imperialist attitude led
to the application of ideological criteria in the assessment of the Asian nations.
When Japan embarked upon an imperialist career in China, Japanese imperialist
policy caused alarm to the Indian people and Japan, which had been so far popular
with Indian people, began to be disliked and dubbed as deviationist engaged in
unoriental activities. On the other hand, from the very beginning of the Sino-Japa-
nese hostilities India’s full sympathy was with China. Thus opposition to imperia¬
lism released the forces that united India and China against even an Oriental nation
which had done much to awaken the Asian people and to explode the myth of
European invincibility at the outset of the 20th Century. This tendency indicated
that despite her Asianism anti-imperialism was the creed for Nationalist India.
Leaders of India were opposed to imperialism whether Eastern or Western.

India’s attitude towards Palestine problem reflected India’s abhorrence of
imperialism. Enlightened public opinion and both the Indian National Congress and
the All India Muslim League became horrified at the cruelties perpetrated on the
Jews in Europe. Despite her sympathy for the Jews India looked with disfavour or
rather opposed the Jews’ attempt to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine

230

Indian NathnaiisiH and Asia

with the assistance of the British hayonel because both the Indian National Con¬
gress and Muslim League held the identical view that PalestiM was an Arab land
where the transplantation of the Jewish national home was to mean the extermina¬
tion of the Arabs. Enlightened public opinion in India suggested that the Jews
should enjoy special privileges in Palestine which belonged to the Arabs. To the
Indian people the problem of Palestine was a nationalist one, the Arabs were fight¬
ing against imperialim which backed the Jewish demand for a national home in
Palestine. This approach revealed India's stubborn opposition to imperialism and
India’s application of the ideological criteria in the assessment of the' Asian nations.

But 4t does not mean that India emerged independent with any bias against
any Asian nation. Nationalist India was always eager to promote mutual
collaboration among the Asian nations which, in the eyes of the Indian leaders,
were comrades-in~bondage. Even the fund of goodwill for Japan did not exhaust in
India though Japan was bitterly criticised for her aggressive policies in China and
South East Asia during the Second World War. When Japan reached the borders of
India the leaders in India stood as one man against Japan. However, there was a
section of Indian population having faith in the declarations of Subhas Bose which
remained sympathetic to Japan. After the Japanese surrender in August, 194S
Indian leaders expressed concern over the fate of Japanese people and asked that
no harsh treatment should be meted out to Japan because Japanese people had
been misguided by their rulers. India’s concern for Japan's future revealed that
inspite of Japan’s deviation the basic solidarity between India and Japan had
suffered very little. Thus, despite ideological differences a tradition of hostility to
none in Asia developed in the Indian nationalist thinking.

Another feature of the Indian outlook which became more and more
pronounced with the broadening of the Indian National Movement was that India
was devoid of any expansionist urge. Indian leaders did not want to be instrumen¬
tal in depriving other countries of freedom. They followed a policy of non¬
interference in the affairs of other countries. The British Government had used
Indian resources in men and money to promote their trade and territory in Asia
and had used Indian soldiers in suppressing the nationalist aspirations of the Asian
peoples. With the growth of political consciousness in’India the idea developed
that Indian resources should not be employed to do the dirty work of British
imperialism. From the very inception the Indian National Movement, which was
devoid of any expansionist urge, opposed the British expansionist policy in Asia
and asked for the withdrawal of Indian soldiers from other Asian countries
stationed there to help the imperialist powers. Moreover, India did not want to
interfere in the affairs of the Asian people and developed a tradition of friendship
with Asian neighbours on the basis of mutual co-operation and the principle of
non-interferente in their affairs.

During the period under review the Indian leaders worked as spokesmen of
Asia and made attempts to place Asia on the map of the world and repudiated
the Western claim that Europe was and always has been superior to Asia. They
also declared that Asia once again would play a determining role in future world
politics.

India was not content with friendly bilateral relations with individual Asian

Conclusion

231

countries. Common problems, culfural affinity, geographical contiguity and political
fjctors OTged the Indian leaders to co-ordinate their struggle for independence with
tne similar movements of the other Asian countries. The desire to have friendly
wntacts with Asian peoples gave birth to the concept of regional integration in

A ® scheme for the federation

o a the Asian countries was drawn up, sometimes a scheme for the federation of
coMtries Iwlonging to a particular region in Asia was drawn up by the nationalist
eaders of India. Tbe Delhi Asian Relations Conference was the biggest adventure
made by the Indian leaders to promote Asian solidarity. The Conference created a
permanent body to carry on the task for the promotion of close contacts among
the Asian countries. Though it did not, as the later years showed, work to the
satisfaction of the organisers but it marked the resurgence of Asia and laid the
foundation upon which the future structure of Asian solidarity was constructed in
the Indonesia Conference held in 1949 and the Bandung Conference in 1955.
Indian attempts taught the Statesmen of Asia to meet together, discuss tog^her
and work out their common problems.

But India’s ideal of Asianism was neither the outcome of any common Pan-
Asiatic doctrinaire ideology nor did it imply any hostility towards Europe or
America. In the Asian Relations Conference Nehru and other Indian leaders
frankly declared that the Indian attempts for Asian solidarity did not aim at the
creation of a Pan-Asian movement against America or Europe. Their efforts aimed
at promoting world peace and progress. It was repeatedly stated by the Indian
leaders that their chief objective was the realisation of One World for which the
co-operation of the Asiatics was essential. Indian leaders urged the Asiatic nations
to work under the stewardship of the United Nations. In fact, India’s Asianism
did not favour continentalism pure and simple. In order to have One World,
Indians thought that the countries of Asia should also co-operate together and
that too under the umbrella of the United Nations.

In every scheme of Asiatic Federation the leaders of India stressed the pivotal
position of India. Indian leaders thought that India, with vast human population,
was politically and geographically so situated that she was a factor to be reckoned
with in Asia. They put forth the claim of India to be a pivot in Asia but the
Indians did not want to dominate over other Asian nations. During the Asian
Relations Conference Indian leaders were emphatic in stating that there was no
question of leader and follower in Asia. All were equal.

The traditions built up by the Indian National Movement contained in
themselves certain lessons for the foreign policy makers of India. They pointed
out that India’s claim to speak on behalf of Asia, if unduly exhibited or if put to
extreme, would be irritating to the Asian countries and would cause concern and
distrust in the Asian neighbours about the intentions of India. In itself, it is a great
lesson and guideline for the foreign policy makers of India. The traditions
developed by the Indian National Movement and the experiences of the Indian
delegates at the Asian Relations Conference revealed that more deliberations and
good intentions would not suffice in forging Asian Unity and in developing
solidarity among the nations of Asia. It was also made clear that in the absence
of compelling interests requiring regional oo-operation, the formation of regional

232

Indian Nationalism and Asia

inttgration among the nations of Asia was inconceiaable. Any
fSoo, or mgional integration or Asian solidarity
requisites and must be necessitated by

because spiritual and geographical factors and *"‘"7^““™

sentiments were not sufficient for any scheme of A"*" ^

leaders and policy makers must pay heed to this hitter truth experienced by the

Indian nationalist leaders. tsnif> to

Needless to say that international outlook of a nation changes from time to

time and with the change in national interestt but most

and evolved by the Indian National Movement are such that they do not rmse

dissent and their validity can not he denied at any time and in

need to promote solidarity and mutual co-operation among the “““I" ^

?h7poli^ of non-interference and mutual respect and to promote r;«ional M

operatiorin Asia under the stewardship of the United Nations "

sMh traditions left by the Indian National Movement that no

them. India's opposition to imperialism of whatever sort “2"

friendly relations with all Asian neighbours are legacies of the Indian National

Movement.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

A. Uopablished Records

1. Curzon Papers.

2. DuSerin Papers.

3. Elgin Papers.

4. Hamilton Papers.

5. Hardinge Papers.

6. Jayakar Papers.

7. Lytton Papers.

8. Minto Papers.

9. Metson Collection.

10. Ripon Papers.

11. Tyabji Papers.

12. Government of India. Home Dcptt., Political, Records.

13. Government of India. Reforms Deptt., Records.

14. Government of India. Foreign Deptt. Proceedings.

B. Poblished Documents

1. Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms. Montagu-Chelmsford Report.

2. Report of the Sedition Committee, 1918-

3. Parliamentary Debates. Legislative Assembly, 1946.

4. Banerjee, A.C.: Indian Constitutional Documents, 4 Vols., 1961.

5. Dobbin, Christine- Basic Documents in the Development of Modern India and

Pakistan, 1835-47. Von Nostrand Reinhold, Co., London, 1970.

6. Gwyer, M. and Appadorai, A.: Speeches and Documents on the Indian

Constitution, 1921-47, 2 Vols., Oxford, 1957.

7. Philips, C.H.: (ed). The Evolution of India and Pakistan 1858-47. Select

Documents, London, 1962.

8. Mukheijee, P.: Indian Constitutional Documents. Vol. 1,1918.

9. Keith. A.B. : Speeches and Documents on Indian Policy, 2 Vols, 1922.

10. Munshi, K.M.: Indian Constitutional Documents. Vol. I, Bhartiya Vidya

Bhavan, Bombay, 1967. . , „ .

11. Source Material for a History of the Freedom Movement in India. Collected

from Bombay Government Records.

234

Indian Nationalism and Asia

C. Reports, Proceediogs snd PaMicatiens of tbc Indian National Congress ud
other Associations and Societies.

All Parties Conference 1928^ Report of the Committee appointed by the Ccmference
to determine the Principles of the Constitution for India, Allahabad, A.I.C.C.,
1928.

All Asian Women’s Conference. First Session. Lahore, December 19, 1930 to
January 25, 1931, Bombay. The Times of India Press, 1931.

Asian Relations : Being Report of the Proceedings and Documentation of the First
Asian Relations Conference, New Delhi, March*April, 1947. New Delhi: Asian
Relations Organisation, 1948.

Asian Relations Conference : Papers Submitted to the Asian Relations Conference.
New Delhi. 1947, mimed.

Proceedings of the Indian History Congress.

Prospectus of the Central Mohammedan Association of Calcutta, 1878.

A Quarter Century of the Mohammrdan Literary Society of Calcutta, Calcutta, 1889.

Mohammedan Literary Society: Abstract of Proceedings of Meeting held in Calcutta
on November 22, 1870.

Report of the Committee of the Central Mohammedan Association for the past S
years, Calcutta, 1885.

Report of the Committee of the Central National Mohammedan Association for
the years, 1883-84, Calcutta, 1885.

The Rules and Objects of the National Mohammedan Association with a List of
the Members, Calcutta, 1882.

The Twelfth Annual General Meeting of the British Indian Association, February
24, 1864, Calcutta, 1864.

Madras Mahajan Sabha : Proceedings of the Conference held on December 29 and
30, 1884, and January 1 and 2, 1885.

Quarterly Journal of the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha, 1886.

Quarterly Journal of the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha, 1884 and 1916.

Indian Association, 1876-1952, Souvenir.

Thacker’s Directory for Bengal, North Western Provinces for 1865, Culcutta, 1865.

Records of the Special Session of the Assembly of the League of Nations Special
Supplement, No. 101,1932.

Records of the Twelfth Assembly of the League of Nations, 1931.

Resolutions of the All India Muslim League: From December 1938 to March 1940:
Delhi, n.d.

Resolutions of the Alt India Muslim League: From April 1941 to April 1942.
Muslim League Press, Delhi n.d.

Resolutions of the All India Muslim League; From April 1942 to May 1943.
Delhi, n.d.

Resolutions of the All India Muslim League: From January 1944 to December 1946
Delhi, n.d.

The Indian National Congress, 1920*23. Being a collection of the Resolutions of the
Congress and of the All India Congress Committee and the Working Com¬
mittee of the Congress from September 1920 to December {923. Allahabad.

J^lUfgnphy

235

The A.I.C.C,, 1924.

The Indian National Congress, 1924. Allahabad, A.I.C.C., 1925.

.. 1925, Allahabad, A.I.C.C., 1926

1926, Madras, A.I.C.C..1927,

» 1927, Madras, A.I.CC, 1928.

.. 1928, Allahabad, AIC C., 1929.

•> 1930-34, Allahabad, A.I.C.C, 1934.

». 1934-36. Allahabad, A.I.C. C., 1936.

.. 1936-37, Allahabad, A.LC.C., n d.

1936-39, Allahabad, A.I.C.C, n.d.

„ 1939-40, Allahabad, A.l C.C., n.d.

The Indian National Congress, From March, 1940 to September, 1946: Being
the Resolutions passed by the Congress. The All India Congress Committee and
the Working Committee, Allahabad, n.d.

The Indian National Congress; All India CongrdSs Committee, Foreign Department
News Letter, 1936-41, Allahabad. A.I.C.C. Mimeographed.

Congress Bulletin, 1929-31 ; 1934-42 ; 1945-47. Allahabad, A.l C.C.

Congress Presidential Addresses : First Series : From the Foundation to the Silver
Jubilee. Second Series: From Silver to the Golden Jubilee. 2 Vols. Madras,
Natesan, 1934-35.

Congress and War Crisis. Allahabad, A I.C.C., n.d.

Proceedings of the 1st Indian National Congress, held at Bombay on the 27th, 28th
29th and 30th December, 1885, 2nd ed, Madras. 1905.

Report of the 2nd Indian National Congress, held at Calcutta, December 1886,
Calcutta, Centress Press Company n.d.

Report of the 3rd Indian National Congress, held at Madras, December 1887,
London, n.d.

Report of the 5th Indian National Congress, held at Bombay, December 1889,
Bombay, n d.

Report of the 6th Indian National Congress, held at Calcutta, December 1890,
London. 1891.

Report of the 7th Indian National Congress, held at Nagpur, December 1891,
London, 1892.

Report of the 8th Indian National Congress, held at Allahabad, December 1892,
Allahabad, n.d.

Report of the 9th Indian National Congress, held at Lahore, December 1893,
Calcutta, 1898.

Report of the 10th Indian National Congress, held at Madras, December 1894,
Madras 1895.

Report of the 11th Indian National Congress, held at Poona December 1895,
Bombay, 1898.

Report of the 12th Indian National Congress, held at Amraoti, December 1897,
Bombay, 1898.

Report of the 14th Indian National Congress, held at Madras, December 1899.

Report of the 15th Indian National Congress, held at Lucknow, December 1899,
Lucknow, 1900.

236 Indian Nationalism and Asia

Report of the 16th Indian National Congress, held at Lahore, December 1900,
Lahore, 1901.

Report of the 17th Indian National Congress, held at Calcutta, December 1901,
Calcutta, 1902.

Report of the 18th Indian National Congress, held at Ahmedabad, December 1902,
Bombay, 1902.

Report of the 19th Indian National Congress, held at Madras, December 1903,
Madras, 1904.

Report of the 20th Indian National Congress, held at Bombay, December 1904,
Bombay, 1905.

Report of the 22nd Indian National Congress, held at Calcutta, December 1906,
Calcutta, 1907.

Report of the 23rd Indian National Congress, held at Madras, December 1908,
Madras, 1909.

Report of the 2Sth Indian National* Congress, held at Allahabad, December 1910,
Allahabad, 1911.

Report of the 27th Indian National Congress, held at Bankipore, December 1912,
Bankipore, 1913.

Report of the 28th Indian National Congress, held at Karachi, December 1913,
Karachi, n.d.

Report of the 29th Indian National Congress, held at Madras, December 1914,
Madras, 1915.

Report of the 30th Indian National Congress, held at Bombay, December 1915,
Bombay, 1916.

Report of the 31st Indian National Congress, held at Lucknow, December 1916,
Allahabad, 1917.

Report of the 32nd Indian National Congress, held at Calcutta, December 1917,
Calcutta, 1918.

Report of the 33rd Indian National Congress, held at Delhi, December 1918, Delhi,
1919.

Report of the 34th Indian National Congress, held at Amritsar, December 1919 and
January 1920, Amritsar, 1920.

Report of the 35th Indian National Congress, held at Nagpur, December 1920,
Nagpur, n.d.

Report of the 36th Indian National Congress, held at Ahmedabad, December 1921,
Ahmedabad. n.d.

Report of the 37th Indian National Congress, held at Gaya, December 1922, Patna,
1923.

Report of the 38th Indian National Congress, held at Coconada, December 1923,
Coconada, 1974

Report of the 40th Indian National Congress, held at Kanpur, December 1925,
Madras, n.d.

Report of the 41st Indian National Congress, held at Gauhati, December 1926,
Madras, n.d.

Report of the 42nd Indian National Congress, held at De^mber 1927,

Madras, nd.

Bibliography

Report of the 44th Annuai Session, held at Lahore, Pecember 25-31, 1929, Lahore
n.d.

Report of the 4Sth lodiaa National Congress, Karachi, 1931, Karachi, n.d.

Report of the 4Sth Annual Session of the Indian National Congress, Bombay,
October 1934, Bombay, 1934.

Report of the 49th Session of the Indian National Congress, Lucknow, April 1936.
Allahabad, 1936.

Report of the 51st Indian National Congress, Haripura, 1938, Ahmedabad, 1938.
Report of the S2Dd Indian National Congress, Tripuri, 1939, Jubbalpore, 1939.
Report of the 53rd Indian National Congress, Ramgarh, 1940, Ramgarh, 1940.
Secrataries* Report for the year 1927, Madras, 1928.

Annual Report of the Indian National Cohgress for the year 1931-32, Allahabad, n.d.
Report for 1933-34, Presented by the General Secretaries of the Congress, Bombay,
1934.

Report of the Working General Secretary, November, 1934-March 1936, Allaha¬
bad, 1936.

Report of the General Secretary, April-December 1936, Allahabad, n.d.

Report of the General Secretary, January 1937-February 1938, Allahabad, 1938.
Report of the General Secretary, March 1938- February, 1939, Allahabad, 1939.
Report of the General Secretary, March 1939* February, 1940, Allahabad, 1940.
Report of the General Secretaries, March 1940- October 1946, Allahabad, 1946.
What Congress Fights for : Being the Election Manifesto of the Indian National
Congress, 1945-46, Calcutta, 1945.

Congress Souvenir, Ramgarh, 1940, Calcutta.

D. Speeches and Writings.

Ali, Mohammed : Selected Writings and Speeches of Maulana Mohammed Ali, ed.
by Iqbal Afzal, Lahore, Ashraf, 1944.

Banerjee, Surendranath : Speeches of Babu Surendranath Banerjee, Calcutta, 1908.
Speeches and Writings of Hon : Surendranath Banerjee Selected by Himself,
Madras, Natesan. n.d.

Bhandarkar, R.G.: Collected Works of Sir R.G. Bhandarkar, Vol. 1, Poona, 1927.
Bose, Subhas Chandra : Famous Speeches and Letters of Subhas Chandra Bose, ed.
by Ganpat Rai, Lahore, Lion Press, 1946.

Important Speeches and Writings of Subhas Bose; Being a Collection of Most
Significant Speeches and Writings of Subhas Bose. Ed. by J.S. Bright, Lahore,
Indian Printing Works, 1946.

Netaji Speaks to the Nation, 1928-45. A Symposium of Important Speeches and
Writings of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. Bd. by Durlab Singh, Lahore, Hero
Publications, 1946.

On to Delhi; or Speeches and Writings of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Ed by
G. C. Jain. Delhi, 1946.

Chandavarker, N.G.: The Speeches and Writings of Narayan G. Chandavarkar.
Bombay, 1911.

Curzon, Lord : Lord Curzon in India—Speeches, Vol. II, Lahore, 1906.

238

Indian NathnalistH at^ Asia

Das, Chitta Ranjan : Speeches, Caloitta, 1918.

Desbbandhu ChittaraDjan : Brief Survey of Life and Work, Provincial Conference'
Speeches, Congress Sjpeeches, ed. by R^n Sen, Calcutta, 1927.

Dufferin, Lord : Speeches Delivered in India, (1884*1888), London, 1890.

Dutt, R.C. : Speeches and Papers on Indian Question 1901 and 1902. Calcutta,
1904.

Gokhale, Gopal Krishna : Speeches of the Hon*ble G.K. Gokhale, Madras, 1920.
Speeches and Writings of Gopal Krishna Gokhale, ed. by D.G. Karvae, Vol. II,
Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1966.

His Life and Speeches, ed. by John. S. Hoyland, Calcutta, 1933.

Ghose, Aurobindo : An Open Letter to His Countrymen, Calcutta, 1909.

Speeches, Pondicherry, 1952.

His Letters to His Wife. Poona, 1909.

Gandhi, M.K.: Speeches and Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, Madras, 1933.

Freedom’s Battle, Being a Comprehensive Collection of Writings and Speeches
on the Present Situation. Second ed. Madras, Ganesh, 1922.

The Nation’s Voice : Being a collection of Gandhiji’s Speeches in England and
Sjt. Mahadev Deal’s Account of the Sojourn (Septemitor to December 1931),
Ed. by C. Raja-Gopalachari and J. C. Kumarappa, Second ed. Ahmedabad,
Navjivan, 1947.

My Appeal to the British, ed. by Anand T. Hingorani, New York, 1942.

Quit India, ed. by R.K. Prabhu and U.R. Rao, Revised ed. Bombay, 1942.
Selected Writings of Mahatma Gandhi. Selected and Introduced by Ronald
Duncan, London, Faber and Faber, 1951.

Correspondence with the Government, 1942-44. Ahmedabad, Navjivan, 1945.
Correspondence with Mr. Gandhi, August 1942-April 1944. Delhi, Government
of India, 1944.

Selections from Gandhi. Ed. by N.K, Bose, Ahmedabad, Navjivan, 1948.

Poona Statements: Statements Issued by and Correspondence between Mahatma
Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, September 1933, Lucknow. n.d.

Writings and Speeches of Mahatma Gandhi, Relating to Bihar from 1917 to
1947. ed. by K.K. Datta, Bihar Government I960:

Hume, A.O.: A Speech on the Indian National Congress, its Origin, Aims and
Objects, Calcutta 1888.

Imam, Syed Ali: Speech of Mr. Syed Ali Imam, Bar-at-Iaw, President of the All
India Muslim League, Amjitsar Session, 1908, Banldpore, 1908.

Irwin, Lord : Speeches of Lord Irwin. 2 Vols., Simla, 1930-31.

Iyer, G.S.: Presidential Address at the North Arcot District Conference, August
1907, Madras.

Speeches and Writings, Madras 1918.

Iyengar, Sriman S. Srinivas: His Presidential Address of the 4l8t Indian National
Congress and other Speeches, Madras. n.d.

Joshi, G.V.: Writings and Speeches, Poona, 1912.

Jinnah, M.A.: Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah's Correspondence, ed. by Syed Sharifuddin
Pirzada, Karachi, 1960.

Speeches and Writings of Mr. Jinnah, ed. by Jamil-ud-din Ahmed, Lahore, 1952.

Selected Speeches and Statements of the Quaid-i^Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah
(1911-34 and 1947'48), Lahore : Research Society of Pakistan, University of
Punjab, 1966.

Speeches and Writings of M A. Jinnah (1912-17), Madras, Ganesh, 1918.
Malaviya, Madan Mohan : Speeches and Writings. Second ed. Madras, Natesan,
1919.

Mehta, Sir Pheroz Shah Merwanji: Speeches and writings of Pheroz Shah Mehta,
ed. by C.Y. Chintamani, Allahabad, 1905.

Some Unpublished and Later Speeches and Writings of Sir Pheroz Shah Mehta,
ed. by J.R.B, Jeejeebhoy, Bombay, 1918.

Minto, Earl: Speeches, Calcutta, 1911.

Mitra, Rajendralal: Raja Rajendra Lai Mitra's Speeches, ed. by J. Mitter, Calcutta,
1892.

Naoroji, Dadabhai: Speech^ and Writings. Madras, Natesan, 1910.

Essays, Speeches and Writings, ed. by C.L. Parekh, Bombay, 1887.

Naidu, Sarojini: Speeches and Writings, Madras, Natesan, 1925.

Nehru, Jawahar Lai : Independence and After. A Collection of Speeches. New
York, 1950.

A Bunch of Old Letters, Bombay, 1958.

India and the World : Essays, London, 1936.

Eighteen Months in India, 1936-1937. Being Further Essays and Writings.
Allahabad, 1938.

China, Spain and the War : Essays and Writings, Allahabad, Kitabistan, 1940.
Statements, Speeches and Writings, Allahabad, 1929.

Whither India, Allahabad, Kitabistan, 1933.

Recent Essays and Writings on the future of India, Communalism and other
Subjects, Allahabad, Kitabistan, 1934.

Peace and India, London, India League, 1938.

The Unity of India, Collected Writings, 1937-40, ed. by V.K. Krishna Menon,
London, L. Drummond, 1941.

Before and After Independence. A Collection of the Most Important and Soul
Stirring Speeches Delivered During the Most Important and Soul-Stirring Years
in India’s History 1922-50, ed. by J.S. Bright, New Delhi, 1950.

Jawaharlal Nehru’s Speeches. 1946-48. Vol. I, Publications Division, Govern¬
ment of India, 1949.

Pal, Bepin Chandra : Speeches Delivered at Madras, Madras, 1907.

Patel, Sardar Vallabhbhai: Sardar Patel’s Correspondence ed. by Durga Das. 10
Vols. Navjivan, Ahmedabad.

Ranade, M.G.: The Miscellaneous Writings of the Late Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. G.

Ranade, ed. by R. Ranade, Bombay, 1915.

Rai, Lala Lajpat: India’s Will to Freedom-Writings and Speeches on the Present
Sitimtion, Natesan, Madras.

Writings and Speeches, Madras, 1921.

Writings and Speeches, ed. by V.C. Joshi, 2 Vols. Delhi. 1966.

Sastri, V.S.S.: Speeches and Writings of the Pt. Hon. V.S. Srinivas Sastri, Madras,
1924.

240

Indian Itfalionatism atd Asia

Savarkar, V.D. : Hindu Rashtra Darshan : A Collection of the Presidential
Speeches delivered from the Hindu Mahasabha Platform. India Printing
Works, Bombay, 1949.

Sen, Keshab Chandra : Lectures in India, Cassel and Co., London, 1904.

Lectures in India, Cassel and Co. London, 1901.

Keshab Chandra in England.

Telang, K.T. : Selected Writings and Speeches, ed. by V.V. Thakur, Bombay, 1916.
Tilak, Bal Gangadhar : Two Remarkable Speeches, Sylhet, 1907.

Speeches on Home Rule, Benaras, 1917.

Writings and Speeches, Ganesh, Madras, 1919.

Wach, Dinshaw Eduiji: Speech^ and Writings, Natesan, Madras, 1918.

E. News Papers

1. Amrita Bazar Patrika.

2. Aligarh Institute Gazette.

3. Bengal Harkaru.

4. Bengal Spectator.

5. Bengalee.

6. Behar Herald.

7. Bombay Chronicle.

8. Englishman.

9. Friend of India.

10. Forward.

11. Hindu.

12. Hindoo Patriot.

13. Hindustan Times.

14. Hindustan Standard.

15. Indian Nation.

16. Indian Mirror.

17. Indian Spectator.

18. Indian National Herald.

19. Indian Daily News.

20. Japanese Weekly Chronicle.

21. Japan Weekly Mail.

22. Leader.

23. Mahratta.

24. Moslem Chronicle.

25. Manchester Guardian.

26. New York Times.

27. Native Paper Reports.

28. New York Herald Tribune.

29. Pioneer.

30. Star of India.

31. Statesman.

32. Times, London.

Bii^iiography

24L

33. Times of India.

34. Tribune.

F. Journals and Periodicals

1. Asia.

2. Asiatic Review.

3. AfrO'Asian and World Affairs.

4. Asiatic Quarterly Review (London).

5. American Historical Review.

6. Atlantic Monthly. ^

7. Bengal: Past and Present.

8. Calcutta Review.

9. Contemporary Japan.

10. Current Studies.

11. East and West.

12. Far Eastern Survey.

13. Harijan.

14. Hindustan Review.

15. Indian Review.

16. India Quarterly.

17. Indian Annual Register.

18. Indian Quarterly Register.

19. India.

20. International Organisation.

21. International Affairs.

22. Independent India.

23. Journal of Indian History.

24. Journal of the Bihar Research Society.

25. Journal of Historical Research.

26. Modern Review.

27. National Review.

28. Nineteenth Century.

29. Nineteenth Century and After.

30. Pacific Affairs.

31. Panchajanya.

32. Quarterly Review of Historical Studies

33. United Asia.

34. Viswabharati Quarterly.

35. Young India.

SECONDARY SOURCES

Adloff, Richard and Thompson, Virginia: Minority Problems in South East Asia,
Stanford University, Press, 1955.

Aga Khan, The: India in Transition. London, 1918.

242

IndUm NatUmafym and Aila

Ahmad, A. Khan : The Foundation of Pakistan, London, 1963.

Ahmad, M.: Pakistan and the Middle East Karachi. Kitabi Markaz, 1948.
Ahluwalia, M. M.: Freedom Straggle in India. 1858'1909. Ranjit Printers and
Publishers. Delhi, 1965.

Albiruni, A.H.: Makers of Pakistan and Modern Muslim India, Lahore, 1950.

All, Mohammed : My Life: A Fragment, Lahore, 1942.

Ali, Chowdhary Rahmat: Pakistan, the Fatherland of the Pak Nation, Bombay,
1966.

Ambedkar, B. R. : Pakistan or the Partition of India, Bombay, Thacker, 1946.
Andrews, C. F.: The Renaissance in India, London, 1912.

Andrews, C.F. and Mukherjee, G.: The Rise and GroMh of the Congress in India,
London, 1938.

Appadorai, A.: (ed) Iodia*Studies in Social and Political Development, 1947-1967.
Indian Political Thinking : From Naoroji to Nehru : Oxford University Press,
1971.

Arbuthnote, Alexander J : (ed) Major-General Sir Thomas Munro : Selections from
His Minutes and Other Official Writings, Vol II, London, 1881.

Argov, Daniel: Moderates and Extremists in the Indian National Movement 1883-
1923, Bombay, 1968.

Athalye, D. V.: The Life of Lokamanya Tilak. Poona, 1921.

Ayer, S. A : The Indian Independence Movement in East Asia, Netaji Research
Bureau Bulletin, Vol. 11, July, 1961.

Azad, Maulana Abul Kalara : India Wins Freedom. Calcutta, Orient Longmans,
1959.

Aziz, K. K.: Britain and Muslim India, London, 1967.

Banerjee, Surendranath : A Nation in Making. Being the Reminiscences of Fifty
Years of Public Life. London. Oxford University Press, 1925.

Banerjee, Kalyan Kumar: Indian Freedom Movement—Revolutionaries in America.
Jijnasa, Calcutta, 1969.

Banerjee, A. C. : The Making of the Indian Constitution, 1939-47, Calcutta, 1948.
Banerjee, A. C. and Bose, A. N.: The Cabinet Mission in India, Calcutta, 1946.
Bagal, J. C : History of the Indian Association 1876-1951, Calcutta, 1953.
Bandyopadhyay, J.; Indian Nationalism vs. International Communism, Firma
K.L. Mukhopadhyay, Calcutta, 1966.

Bandarnaike, S. W. R. D.: Towards a New Era. Colombo, 1961.

Bapat, S. Y.: Reminiscences of Lokamanya Tilak, Poona, 1921.

Bary, William Theodore De : (ed) Sources of Indian Tradition, Oxford.

Barker, A. J.: The March on Delhi, London, 1963.

Bail, W. Mac Mohan: Nationalism and Communism in East Asia. Melbourne
University Press, 1952.

Bahadur, Lai: Muslim League : Agra, 1954.

Besant, Annie: India’s Awakening. Benaras, Theosophical PubHshing Society, 1906.
India and the Empire, London, 1914.

How India Wrought For Freedom, Adyar, Madras, 1915.

India : Bond or Free? A World Problem, London, Putnam, 1926.

l^bii&graphy

243

Beanett, O.: The Concept of Empire from Bnrios to Atlee, 1774-1947, London,
1953.

Bevan, Edwyn: Indian Nationalism, London, 1914.

Beck, Theodore ; Es«ays on Indian Topics, Allahabad, 1888.

Beams, John : Memoirs of a Bengal Civilian, London, 1961.

Bhan, Suraj: Dayananda : His Life and Works, Jullundur, 1956.

Bhattacharjee, P. F.: India and Politics of Modern Nepal, Calcutta, 1970.

Blunt, Wilfred Scawen : India under Ripon: A Private Diary'. London, 1999.

Bose, N. S.: Indian Awakening and Bengal, Calcutta, 1969.

The Indian National Movement: An Outline: Firma, K.L. Mukhopadhyay,
Calcutta, 1965.

Bose, Subhas Chandra : The Indian Struggle, 1920-42.

Crossroads, Calcutta, 1962.

The Mission of Life, Calcutta, 1968.

An Indian Pilgrim, Calcutta, 1965.

Bose, A. C.: Indian Revolutionaries Abroad, 1905-20 in the Background of
International Developments. Unpublished Thesis, Patna University.

Bolitho, Hector: Jinnah: Creator of Pakistan, London, 1954.

Brailsfurd, Henry Noel: Rebel India, New Work, 1931.

Subject India, New York, Jobnway, 1913.

Brecher, M. : Nehru : A Political Biography, Oxford, 1959.

The New States of Asia.

Brown, D. Mackenzie: Indian Political Thought, From Ranade to Bbave,
Berkeley. 1961.

Buchan, John : Lord Minto : A Memoir, London, 1924.

Buch, M. A. : The Development of Contemporary Indian Political Thought,
Baroda, (938.

Rise and Growth of Indian Militant Nationalism.

Buckland, C E.: Bengal under the Lieutenant-Governors, 2 Vols, Calcutta, 1901.

Dictionary of Indian Biography, London, 1906.

Campbell, G.: Memoirs of My Indian Career, 2 Vols. London, 1893.

Caveeshar. S S.: India’s Fight for Freedom : Lahore, 1936.

Chailley, J.: Administrative Problems of British India, London, 1910.

Chand, Uttam : When Bose was Ziauddin, Delhi, Rajkamal, 1946.

Chand, Tara : History of the Freedom Movement in India, 4 Vols.

Chandra, Bipin: The Rise and Growth of Economic Nationalism in India, New
Delhi, 1966.

Chamanlal: Secrets of Japan, Tokyo, 1937.

Chakravarti, P. C : India China Relations, Firma, K.L. Mukhopadhyay, Calcutta.
Chatterjee, Ramananda: Towards Home Rule. 2 Vols. Calcutta, 1917.

Chatterjee, Nandalal: India’s Freedom Struggle, Indian Press, Allahabad, 1958.
Chatterjee, A.C.: India’s Struggle for Freedom, Calcutta, 1947.

Chaudhuri, B M.: Muslim Politics in India, Oilcutta, 1946.

Chirol, Valentine : Fifty years in a Changing World. London, 1927.

Indian Unrest, London, 1921.

India : Old and New, London, 1921.

244

Indian Nathnalim and Asia

Cbintamani, C.Y. and Masani, M.R.: India's Constitution at Work, Bombay, 1940.
Close, Upton : The Revolt of Asia, New York, 1927.

Collet, Sophia Dobson,: The Life and Letters of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, London,
1900.

Colebrooke, T.E.: Life of the Honourable Mountstuart Elphinstone, Vol., II,
London, 1884.

Coalman, J.: Years of Destiny: India, 1926-32, London, 1932.

Cotton, H.J S.: New India or India in Transition, London, 1885.

Coupland, R.: Britain and India, 1600-1941, London, 1941.

The Indian Problem, Oxford, 1942.

Report on the Constitutional Problem in India, Part II, Oxford, 1944.

India : A Restatement, Oxford, 1945.

Cumming, J. : (ed) Political India, 1832-1932. Oxford, 1932.

Das, M.N. : India under Morley and Minto, 1964.

Das, Durga : India From Curzon to Nehru and After, London, 1969.

Das, C.R.: India for the Indians,: Madras, 1921.

Das, Taraknath : India in World Politics, New York, 1923.

Datta, K.K. : Renaissance, Nationalism and Social Changes in Modern India,
Bookland, Calcutta, 1965.

Dawn of Renascent India.

Deb. J.M. : India Unreconciled, Bombay, 1945.

Desai, Mahadev Haribhai, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad : The President of the
Indian National Congress a Biographical Memoir, Agra, 1946.

With Gandhiji in Ceylon. A Journal of the Tour with Authorised version of
All Important Speeches, Madras, Ganesan, 1228.

Desai, A.R. : Social Background of Indian Nationalism, Oxford, 1949.

Desai, Bhulabhai: The l.N.A. Defence, Delhi, 1945.

Desai, W.S.: India and Burma, A Study, Bombay, 1954.

Dilke, Sir Charles Wentworth: Greater Britain, London, 1890.

The British Empire, London, 1899.

Dua, R.P. : The Impact of the Russo-Japanese War (1905) On Indian Politics, S.
Chand and Co., Delhi.

Dutt, Rajani Palm : Modern India, Bombay, 1926.

India Today, London, 1940.

Dutt, R.C. : Economic History of India-Early British Rule, London, 1956.
Dwarkadas, Kanji, India’s Fight For Freedom, 1913-1937 : An Eye-Witness Story,
Bombay, 1966.

Gandhi Through My Diary Leaves, Bombay, 1950.

Dwivedi, P.: (ed) The Life and Speeches of Pandit Jawabarlal Nehru, Allahabad,
1929.

Edwardes, Michaeal : The Last Years of British India, 1963.

Earquhar, J.N.: Modern Religious Movement in India, London, 1929.

Faruqi, Ziya-ul-Hasan : The Deoband School and the Demand For Pakistan,
London, 1963.

Fischer, Louis : A Week with Gandhi, New York, 1942.

The Great Challenge, New York, 1946.

SU>tiogn^y

245

The Life of Mahatma Gandhi, New York, 1950.

Fisher, Fred B : India’s Silent Revolution.

Fletcher, Arnold : Afghanistan : Highway of Conquest. Cornell University Press,
New York, 1966.

Forster, E.M. : A Passage to India, New York, 1924.

Fraser, A.L.: India under Curzon and After, London, 1911.

Frazer, R.W.: Literary History of India.

Furnival, J.S.: Colonial Policy and Practice, Cambridge, 1948.

Gokbale, B.G.: The Making of the Indian Nation, Bombay, 1960.

Gandhi, M K. : The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Ahmedabad, Navjivan,
1940.

Communal Unity. Ahmedabad, Navjivan, 1949.

Hind Swaraj, Madras, 1921.

Non Violence in Peace and War, 2 Vols, Navjivan, 1948-49.

Young India, Vol. 1, 1919-22. Vol. II, 1924-26.

Ghose, Aurobindo : The Doctrine of Passive Resistance, Pondicherry, 1952.

Bankim, Tilak, Dayananda, Calcutta. 1940.

Ghose, P.C. : The Development of the Indian National Congress, Calcutta, 1960.
Ghose, Man Mohan : China’s Conflict with India and the Soviet Union, Calcutta,
1969.

Ghose, S : Gandhi's Emissary, 1967.

Ghose, Jogesh Chunder: (ed) The English Works of Ram Mohan Roy. Pannini
Office, Allahabad, 1906.

Giani, K.S : Indian Independence Movement in East Asia, Lahore, 1947.

Gidumal, Dayaram : The Life and Work of Behram M. Malabari, Bombay, 1888.
Gopal. S. : The Viceroyalty of Lord Ripon, Oxford, 1953.

The Viceroyalty of Lord Irwin, Oxford, 1957.

British Policy in India. 1858-1905, Cambridge, 1965.

Gopal, Ram : Indian Muslims. A Political History, London, 1959.

Lokamanya Tilak. A Biography, Bombay, 1956.

Graham, G.F.I. : The Life and Work of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, London, 1909.
Gregorian, Vartan : The Emergence of Modern Afghanistan, Stanford University
Press, 1969.

Grifiths, P.J.: The British Impact on India, London, 1952.

The British in India, London, 1946.

Grover, B L.; A Documentary Study of British Policy Towards Indian Nationalism,
1885-1909, New Delhi, 1967.

Gupta, Sisir : India and Regional Integration in India, Bombay, 1964.

Gupta, A.: (ed) Studies in the Bengal Renaissance, Jadavpur, 1958.

Gurunadhan, J.: Viresalingam : The Founder of Telegu Public Life, 1911.

Gupta, J.C., Das : A National Biography for India, Dacca, 1911.

Hall, D. G. E.: Burma.

Halifax, Earl G : Fulness of Days, London, 1957.

Hardinge, Lord : My Indian Years : Reminiscences, London, 1948.

Harrison, Marqu erite : Asia Reborn, New York, 1928.

Hcimsath, Charles, H. : Indian Nationalism and Hindu Social Reform, New Jersey,
1964.

246

tndUm Natisnalim and Asia

Hingorani, Anand T : (ed) The Htndii*MiiiUm Unity, Bombay, 1965<

Houghton, Bernard : The Revolt of the East, Madras, 192 L
Husain, Abid : The Destiny of Indian MusUffls, Bomtwy, 1965.

Hume, A.C.: The Star in the East; or the Bengal National League, Calcutta,
18S6.

Hunter, W.W.: The Indian Mussalmans, London, 1871.

Hutchins, Francis, G.: The Illusion of Permanence : British Imperialism in India,
New Jersey, 1967.

Ikram. S M.: Modem Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan, Lahore, 1965.

Ike, Nobutake : Japan’s Decision For War, Stanford, 1967.

Ispahan], M.A.H. : Quiud>e>Azam Jinnah. As I knew Him, Karachi, 1966.

Ishaque, M : Modem Persian Poetry, Calcutta 1943.

Iyer, C.S Ranga : India in the Crucible, London, 1928.

Iyer, G.S.: Some Economic Aspects of British Rule in India, Madras, 1903.

Jain, M.S.: The Aligarh Movement, 1965.

Jansen, G H.: Afro-Asian and Non-Alignment, London, 1965.

Jayakar, M.R.: Social Reform and Social Service, Madras, 1917.

The Story of My Life, 2 Vols., Bombay, 1958-59.

Jeffries, Sir Charles : Ceylon—The Path to Independence, London, 1962.

Jones, F C.: Japan’s New Order in East Asia, 1937<4S, London, 1954.
Jinnah-Gandhi Talks September, 1944, Delhi, A.I.M.L, 1944.

Karuna Karan, K.P.: India in World Affairs ; 1947-5U, Bombay, 1952.

Kelkar, N C.: The Case For Indian Home Rule. Poona, 1917.

Khan, Sir Syed Ahmed : An Easay on the Causes of the Indian Revolt, Calcutta
1860.

The Present State of Indian Politics. Allahabad, 1888.

Khan, Shahnawaz : My Memories of l.N A. and its Netaji, Delhi, 1946.
Khaliquzzaman : Pathway to Pakistan, Lahore, 1961.

Khan, Ghani : The Patbans, Bombay, 1947.

Khanal, Y.N. : Foreign Policy of Nepal.

Khosla, G.D : Stern Reckoning ; A Survey of the events leading upto and follow¬
ing the Partition of India, New Delhi, 1949.

Kidwai, M H ; Swaraj and How to Obtain It. Lucknow, 1924.

Pan-Islamism and Bolshevism, London, 1937.

Kirk, G.E.: A Short History of the Middle East, London, 1961.

Kondapi, C.: Indians Overseas, 1838-1949, Delhi. 1951.

Koihari. S.: India’s Emerging Foreign Policies, Bombay, 1951.

Kohn, Hans: A History of Nationalism in the East, London, 1929.

Kripalani, J B : Non-Violent Revolution, Bombay, Vora and Co , 1938.

Kripalani, Krishna : Tagore : A Life. New Delhi, 1961.

Kulkarni, V B.: British Statesmen in India, Orient Longmans, 1961.

Kundra, J C : Indian Foreign Policy, 1947-54. Groningen, Wotlcrs, 1955.

Lawton. Lancelot; Empire in the Far East Vol II London, 1912
Levi, Werner: Free India in Asia. Minnesota, 1953.

The Challenge of World Politics in South East Asia.

Bibltagtvf^y

247

Lenc20wski, George t The Middle East ia World Affairs. Cornell University Press,
1969.

Li, Tteh-Tseng: The Historical status of Tibet

Lovett, V.: History of the Indian Nationalist Movement, London, 1921.

Lohia, Ram Manohar : Indian Foreign Policy, Allahabad, 1938.

Lumby, E.W.R.: The Transfer of Power in India, 1945*47, London, 1954.

Lyall, A.C.: The Life of the Marquis of Duffsrin and Ava., 2 Vols., London, 1905.
Mac Donald, Ramsay : The Awakening of India, London, 1910.

Majumdar, B B.: History of Indian Social and Political Ideas . From Ram Mohan
to Dayananda, Bookland, Calcutta, 1967.

Indian Political Associations and Reform of Legislature (1818-1917), Calcutta,
1965.

Majumdar, B.B. and B.P.: Congress and Congressmen in Pre-Gandhian Era (1885-
1917), Calcutta, 1967.

Majumdar, R.C.: History of the Freedom Movement in India, 3 Vols., Calcutta,
1971, (1962-63).

Glimpses of Bengal in the Nineteenth Century, 1960.

(ed) The History and Culture of the Indian People : Struggle for Swaraj, Bom¬
bay, 1969.

Majumdar, P.C.: The Faith and Progress of the Brahmo Samaj, Calcutta, 1934.
Majumdar, S-K. : Jinnah and Gandhi, Calcutta, 1966.

Majumdar, P.C : The Life and Teachings of Keshab Chandra Sen, Calcutta, 1887.
Mallik, D.N.: The Development of Non-Alignment in Indian Foreign Policy,
Allahabad, 1967.

Mallik, Hafeez : Moslem Nationalism in India and Pakistan, Washington, 1963.
Martineau, Harriet: Suggestions towards the Future Govt, of India, London, 1958.
Masani, R.P. : Dadabhai Naoroji: The Grand Old Man of India, London, 1939.
Masani, M R.: The Communist Party of India, A Short History London, 1954.
Maung Maung : Burma and General Newin, Bombay, 1969.

Max Muller : Ram Mohan to Ram Krishna, Calcutta, 1952.

Mazumdar, AC.: Indian National Evolution, Madras. Natesan, 1915.

Me. Cully, Bruce Tiebout: English Edu(Xition and the Origins of Indian Nationa¬
lism, New York, 1940.

Menon, V.P.: The Transfer of Power in India, New Jersey, 1957.

Mehta, A and Patwardhan, A.: The Communal Triangle in India, Second ed.
Allahabad, 1942.

Mehtap, M.A.: Whys of the Great Indian Conflict, Lahore, 1947.

Mehrotra, S.R. : India and the Common Wealth, 1885-1929, London, 1965.

The Emergence of the Indian National Congress, Delhi, 1971.

Metcalfe. T.R.: The Aftermath of Revolt, 1857-70, New Jersey, 1965.

Minto, Lady; India : Minto and Morley (1905-10). London, 1935.

Mitra, Sisir Kumar : Resurgent India, Bombay, 1963.

Mody, H P. ; Sir Phiroz Shah Mehta, Bombay, 1921.

Morley, Viscount : R«;ollectioas, Vol 11.

Mukberjee, Hirendranath : India's Struggle for Freedom, Bombay, 1948.
Mukherjee, H. and U : Sri Aurobindo's Political Thought, Calcutta, 1958.

Indian Nathnaiim and Asia

24t

*Bande Mataram* and Indian Nationalism, Calcutta, 1957.

India’s Fight For Freedom, Calcutta, 1958.

The Growth of Nationalism in India (1857*1905), Calcutta, 1952.

Mukherjee, S.: Communalism in Muslim Politics and Troubles over India, Calcutta,
1947.

Nag, Kalidas : Discovery of Asia, Calcutta, 1957.

Greater India, Calcutta, 1960.

Nag, D.S. : Imperialism in South East Asia.

Nair, Sankaran ; Gandhi and Anarchy, Indore, 1922.

Nanda, B R.: The Nehrus: Motilal and Jawaharlal, London, 1962.

Naoroji, Dadabbai : Poverty and un*British Rule in India, London, 1901.

Nariman, K Y. : Whither Congress, Bombay, 1933.

Narayan, Jai Prakash : Towards Struggle, Bombay, 1946.

Narvane, V.S.: Modern Indian Thought: A Philosophical Survey, Bombay, 1964.
Natarajan, S. : A Century of Social Reform in India, Bombay, 1934.

A History of the Press in India, Bombay, 1962.

Natesan, G.A.: (ed) Introduction to Indian Politics. Madras, 1891.

Eminent Mussalmans, Madras, 1925.

Sir Syed Ahmed Khan—A Sketch of His Life and Career.

Badruddin Tyabji—A Sketch of His Life and Career.

Rahimuttala Sayani —A Sketch of His Life and Career.

Nehru, J.L. : The Discovery of India, New York, 1946.

Autobiography, New York, 1941.

Glimpses of World History, 4 Vols., Allahabad, 1934-35.

The Parting of the Ways, Allahabad, 1941.

What India Wants, London, 1942.

Nehru Motilal : Builders of Modern India Series.

Nevison, H.W.: The New Spirit in Indin, London, 1908.

Noman. M. : Muslim India : Rise and Growth of the All India Muslim League,
Allahabad, 1942.

Norman, Dorothy : (cd) Nehru : The First Sixty Years, 2 Vols., Bombay, 1969.

O’ Dwyer, M.: India as I knew It, 1885-1923, London, 1925.

O’ Donnel. C. J. : The Causes of Present Discontent in India, London, 1908.

The Failure of Lord Curzon, London, 1903.

Olcott, H S. ; Old Diary Leaves, Madras, 1928.

O’ Malley, L.S S. : Modern India and the West, Oxford, 1941.

The Indian Civil Service, London, 1931.

Pal, B C.: The Indian National Congress, Lahore, 1887.

The Spirit of Indian Nationalism, Lahore, 1910.

Swadeshi and Swaraj, Calcutta, 1954.

Memories of My Life and Times, 2 Vols., Calcutta, 1932, 1951.

Brahmo Samaj and the Battle of Swaraj, Madras, 1930.

Swaraj, The Goal and the Way, Madras, 1921.

Panikkar, K.M. : Asia and Western Dominance, London, 1959.

The Future of India and South East Asia, London, 1945,

The Afro-Asian States and Their Problems, London.

Bibliography

249

India and the Indian C)cean» London.

In Two Chinas, London.

Pandey, B.N. : The Break-up of British India, London, 1969.

Parekh, C L.: Eminent Indians on Indian Politics, Bombay, J 892.

Parikh, N.D.: Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Ahmedabad, 1953.

Parikh, M.L.: Brahmarshi Keshab Chandra Sen.

Parvate, T.V.; Mahadev Govind Ranade. A Biography, London, 1963.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Ahmedabad, 1958.

Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Ahmedabad, 1959.

Payne, Robert: The Revolt of Asia, New York, 1947.

Pirzada, Syed Sharifuddin : Evolution of Pakistan, Lahore, 1963.

Polak and Others : Mahatma Gandhi.

Pole, Graham. D. : India in Transition, 1932.

Power, Paul F : Gandhi On World Affairs, London.

Prabhu, R.K. and Rao, U.R. :The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, Oxford University
Press.

Pradhan, R.G.: India’s Struggle for Swaraj, Madras, 1930.

Prasad, Amba : The Indian Revolt of 1942, Delhi, 1958.

Prasad, Bimal: The Origins of Indian Foreign Policy, Bookland, Calcutta, 1962.
Prasad, Rejendra : India Divided, Bombay, 1947.

Prakash, Indra : A Review of the History and Work of the Hindu Mahasabha and
the Hindu Sangathan Movement, New Delhi, 1938.

Pyarelal: Mahatma Gandhi: The Last Phase, 2 Vols Ahmedabad, Navjivan, 1958.
Punjabi, K.L.: The Indomitable Sardar, Bombay, 1962.

Puntambekar, S.K.V. ; The Developing Unity of Asia.

Radhakrishnan, S. : India and China, Bombay, 1944.

Raghuvanshi, V.P.S.: Indian Nationalist Movement and Thought, Agra, 1959.

Rai, Lajpat : The Arya Samaj, London, 1915.

The Political Future of India, New York, 1919.

Young India. New York, 1917.

Rajagopalachari, Chakrovarti: The Way out, London, 1944.

Rajkumar, N.V.: Development of the Congress Constitution, New Delhi, A.I.C C
1949.

(ed) The Background of India’s Foreign Policy, New Delhi, A.I.C.C., 1952.

Rajput, A.B. : Muslim League Yesterday and Today, Lahore, 1948.

Ram Krishna : Prophet of New India, (Abridged from “the Gospel of Si i Ram
Krishna”, and trans. into English by Swami Nikhilananda), London, 1948.
Ratcliffe. S.K.: Sir William Wedderburn and the Indian Reform Movement, London,
1923.

Rawlinson, H. G. : The British Achievements in India, London, 1948.

Ray, Sibnarayan : (ed) Gandhi, India and the World, An International Symposium.
Rice, Stanley : The Challenge of Asia. London, 1925.

Romein, Jan : The Asian Century : A History of Modern Nationalism in Asia,
London, 1962.

Ronaldshay, Earl G : The Heart of Aryavrata. The Psychology of Indian Unrest,
London 1925.

250

IndUm NattonaUm and Ada

Row, S. Bhim Sankara: The 22nd Indian Katiooal Congress, 1907, I.OX. Pract,
1028.

Roy, M.N.: India in Transition, Geneva, 1922.

Roy, B.P. Singh : Parliamentary Goveminmit in India, Calcutta, Thacker, 1942.
Russell, W.H.: My Diary in India. 1858>59, 2 Vols., London, 1860.

Sahni, Ruchi Ram ; The Awakening of Mia, Lahore, 1929.

Saitoh, Shun : (ed) Japan and India, Tol^o, 1912.

Saiyid, M.H.: Mohammed Ali Jinnah. A Political Study, Lahore, 1953.

Samuelson, James : India : Past and Present.

Sanyai, Sachindranath : Bandijiwan, Delhi, 1963.

Sarda, Har Bilas : Life of Dayananda Saraswati, Ajmer, 1946.

Satyapal and Probodh Chandra : Sixty years of the Congress, Lahore, 1946.
Savarkar, V.D.: Hindu Sangathan, Its Ideology and Immediate Programme, Bom*
bay, 1940.

Sayeed, Khalid, B : Pakistan ; The Formative Phase 1857*1948, London, 1968.
Seely, J.R.: The Expansion of England, London, 1884.

Scherer, James. A.B. ; Japan’s Advance, Tokyo, 1934.

Seal, Anil : The Emergence of Indian Nationalism, Cambridge, 1968.

Sharan, P. ; The Imperial Legislative Coundl of India, Delhi, 1961.

Sharma, Brij Mohan ■' Swami Dayananda : His Life and Teachings, Lucknow, 1933.
Sharma. Ram Bilas : Bhartendu Harischandra.

Sherwood, R.E. : Roosevelt and Hopkins, New York, 1948.

Shradhananda, Swami: Inside the Congress.

Shridharni, Krishnalal : Warning to the West, Bombay, 1944.

Singh, Bawa Chhajju : The Life and Teachings of Swami Dayananda Saraswati,
Lahore, 1903.

The Teachings of the Arya Samaj, Lahore, 1903.

Singh, H.L.: Problems and Policies of the British in India, 1885-98, Bombay, 1963.
Singh, Harnam : The Indian National Movement and American Opinion, Delhi,
1963.

Singh, Iqbal: India’s Foreign Poli^, Bombay, 1946.

Singhal, D.P.: Nationalism in India and Other Historical Essays, Delhi, 1967.
Sinnet, A.P. : The Occult World, 6th ed., London, 1892.

Sitaram: From Sepoy to Subadar : Being the Life and Adventures of a Native Offi*
cer of the Bengal Army Written and Related by Himself. Calcutta, 1911.
Sitaramayya, B.P.; The History of the Indian National Congress, 2 Vols., Bombay,
1946.

Smith, W.C.: Modem Islam in India, Lahore, 1954.

Some Arya Samajists: The Arya Samaj, Lahore.

Strachey, J.: India, London, 1888.

Stephen, Leslie: The Life of Sir James Fitz James, New York, 1895.

Suttdaram, Lanka : India in World Politics, Lahore, 1944.

Sunderial: A Study of the Hindu-Musltm Problem in India, Allahab«d^ 193^,
Sunderland, J.T.: India in Bondage, 1929.

Suleri, Zia*up*din Ahmed : My Leader, 3rd ed., Lahore.^ 1946,

Studies in Asian History, Bombay, 1969.

BibHography

251

Syfflondf, R.: The Making of Pakistan, London, 1950.

Sykes, Sir Pearcy M.: History of Afghanistan, Voi. 11, London, 1940.

Tagore, Rabindranath: Nationalism, London, 1917.

Tagore, Rabindranath: A Centenary Volnme 1861-1961, New Delhi, 1961.

Tagore*8 Talks in China, Calcutta, 1924.

Tagore, Debendranath: Autobiography (Trans* by S. Tagore and Indra Devi),
London, 1914.

Tahmarkar, D.V.: Lokmanya Tilak, London, 1956.

Tarling, Nicholas: A Concise History of South East Asia, New York, 1956.
Templewood, Viscount: Nine Troubled years, London, 1954.

Tendulkar, D.G.: Mahatma: Life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, 8 Vols.,
Bombay, 1951-54.

Thompson, E.J. and Garrat, G.T.: Rise and Fulfilment of British Rule in India,
London, 1934.

Thien, Ton That: India and South East Asia, 1947-1960, Geneva, 1963.

Tinker, Hugh : The Union of Burma, London, 1967.

Toye, Hugh: Subhas Chandra Bose: The Springing Tiger, Bombay, 1957.
Trevelyan, G.O.: Cawnpore, London, 1910.

Tripathi, A.: The Extremist Challenge, 1957.

Tyabji, H.B.: Badruddin Tyabji, Bombay, 1952.

Vaidya, K.B.: And Now China, Bombay, 1945.

Verma, D.N.: India and the League of Nations.

Vivekananda, Swami: Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, 8 Vols., Almora,
1931.

A Centenary Volume.

Wasti, Syed Razi: Lord Minto and the Indian Nationalist Movement 1905-10,
Oxford, 1964.

Wedderburn, W.: Allan Octavian Hume, London, 1913.

Whitehead, H.: Indian Problems: In Religion Education and Politics, London,
1924.

Williams, Rushbrook : India in the Years, 1917-18,1919 etc.

Willkie. W.L. ; One World. New York, 1943.

Wolf, Lucien: Life of the First Marquess of Ripon, 2 Vols., London, 1921.
Woodruff, Philip: Men who Ruled India, The Guardians, London, 1954.

Wolpert, S.A.: Tilak and Gokhale : Revolution and Reform in the Making o
Modern India, Berkeley, 1962.

Zacharias, H.C.E : Renascent India ; From Rammohan Roy to Mohandas Gandhi
London, 1933.

Zakaria. Rafia : Rise of Muslims in Indian Politics. Bombay, 1970.

INDEX

Abdul Bari, 59, 60, 76

Abdul Hamid 11, 30,49

Abdul Majid Khm, 209

Abdur Qadir, Shaikh, 49, 59

Abdur Rahim, 136

Abdur Rahman Azzam Bay, 210

Afghanistan, 8, 40, 58-9, 95-7,132

Aga Khan, 37, 54, 56, 74, 107, 110,141, 145, 151

Ahmad, Haji, 52

Ahmed, Shaikh, 149

Ahmed Khan, Aga, 99

Ahmed Sayeed, Maulana, 143

Aisawal, 176

Aiyer, C.P. Ramaswami, 136
Ajmal Khan, Hakim, 78, 83, 96
Akali Dal, 101

AKhundzada, Mullah Mahmud, 98

AhBalagh, 95

AUHilal, 51, 52, 55, 56, 95

Al-Muin, 52

Alexander, A-V., 191

Ali Imam, 73

Aligarh College Khilafat Committee, 81
Aligarh Institute Gazette, 52
Aligarh Movement, 13-14
All Asia Women Conferenci (1931) 129, 174-7
All Ceylon Indian Youths' Conference (1929), 93
All India Anti-Peace Celebration Committee, 77
All India Azad Muslim Board, 149
All India Muslim League, 16-17, 39,48,50, 55,
60,72-3, 228
Day of Deliverance, 121
Direct Action Day, 192
Divide and Quit Slogan, 125
Formation, 38
Fourteen Points (1929), 74
Lucknow Pact, 39,70
Pakistan Resolution, 17,121
Resolution re. Turkey, 75-6
Revival, 120

All India Nadonalist League, 161
All India Students* Congress, 199

All India Trade Union Congress, 102,130, 153,
199

All India Women Conference, 129,174, 195-6
All Parties Conference (1922), 83
All Parties Conference (1928), 73
AH Parties Convention (1928), 74
A bar. The. 60

Amanullah. King, 59, 80, 95-9, 132
Abdication, 98
Indian visit, 97
Reforms. 97-8

American Seclusion Bill (1921), 87
Amin, Raoji I, 47
Amir Ali, Syed, 13, IS
Amrtta Bazar Patrika, 29,37, 41,43.49, 99
Ananda Bazar Patrika, 44
Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act (1919),
70

Andrews, C.F., 7,43
Aney, Mr. 137

Anglo-American Association in China, 88
Anglo-Burmese War, 3rd, 28
Anglo-Indian and European Defence League. 8
Anglo'Japanese Alliance (1902), 39-40,46
Anglo-Russian agreement (1907), 39,48
Anglo-Russian rivalry, 40
Anjuman-i-Khuddam-i-Kaaba, 60
Ansari. M-A , 25,73,77, 78, 81, 83,95, 108, 109
Ansari, Muhammad Mian, 59
Ansari, Mukhtar Ahmad, 55
Anti-Fascist Peoples’ Freedom League of Burma,
140

Anwar Pasha, 59
Arab High Committee, 142,144
Arab League, 204, 214
Archbold, W.A.J., 37
ArifT, Cossim, 52
Arya Samaj, 7
Asaf Ali, 100, 143,193, 204
Asia, South East. 87. 132-4,193
Asian Relations Conference (1947), 92,95,205-22,
231

Index

253

Asian Relations Organisation, 212-7
Asiatic Association, Shanghai, 91, 92
Asiatic Federation, 108-10, 130, 139-40, 174-9,
204-5, 231-2
Asquith, Lord. 56
Atai.M., 155, 165
Atlee, C.R., 191, 192
Attiya, 203
August Offer, 122
Aung San, 139, 140,202, 204,209
Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam, 24, 48, 56, 58, 73,
83, 84. 95. 120.121,123,126,159,168,194,195,
200. 202, 203, 204
Azizul-Haque, Muhammad, 73

Ba Naw, 134
Ba Pe, U., 134
Bacha-i-Saqo, 98

Balfour Declaration, 141,142,146
Balkan wars, 53-8
Bandarnaike, Lady, 175
Bandarnaike, Mr., 209, 211
Bande Matram, 121

Bandung Conference (1955), 95, 222, 231
Banerjee, Hem Chandra, 6,27
Bunerjee, R.D., 5

Banerjee, Surendra Nath, 4, 5.7, 8, 9, 13,16, 17,
35,40,70

Banerjee, W.C., II, 13

Barbusse, Henri, 105

Barkatullah, 58, 59. 95

Barker, A.J., 173

Basbeer Ahmed, 98

Basu, Ananda Mohan, 7

Beck, Principal, 14,15

Bengal partition, 2^, 41, 50

Bengali, The, 42,45, 94

Bentham, J., 5

Bergmann, Hugo, 209

Besant, Annie, 8, 39,44

Bhagat Singh, 75,130

Bhandarkar, R- G., 5,8

Bhattacharjec. G.P., 130

Bhattacharya, Chapala Kant, 101

Bhurgri, 108

Bihar famine, 46

Birkenhead, Lord, 72

Bombay Association, 9

Bombay Chronicle, 137

Bombay Naval Ratings, 196

Bombay Presidency Association, 9-10

Bopp, 5

Bose, Mrina] Kanti, 193, 198, 199
Bose, Nandlal, 87
Bose, Raj Narain. 5,6
Bose. Rash Bihari. 47.151. 169,170

Bose. Sarat Chandra, 152,193,196, 198,199,200,
204

Bose, Subhas Chandra, 74.127,139,166.168-73.
230

On Sino-Japanese hostilities, 152,155
Boycott Movement (China). 99-100
Brahmo Samaj, 7
Britidi-India Society, 9
British Indian Association, 9
British Rule
Benefits, 3-4
Buchan, 38
Bureaucracy, 2

Burma, 27.40,61, 92,193, 201, 202
Annexation to Indian Empire, 29-30
Nationalism, 92-3, 134-40
1938 revolt, 138
Whitr Paper (1945), 140
Burma-China Road. 158
Burma Round Table Conference, 135

Cabinet Mission, 191-2
Cairo Conference (1943), 216
Caste system, 46

Central Mohammedan Association of Calcutta
13, 60

Ceylon-India relations, 127-30, 201, 202
Chakravarti, Amiya, 90
Chakravarti, P.C., 99
Chakravarty, Shyam Sunder, 57
Chaman Lall, Diwan, 196
Chandan Singh, Thakur, 94
Cbandavarkar, N-G., 3,8
Chang Yin-Fun, 209
Charyulu, A. Govinda, 109
Charkha Movement (Nepal), 94
Chatterjee, Bankim Chandra, 6, 27
Chatterjee, Nandlal. 10
Chatterjee, Ramananda, 46
Chattopadhyaya, KamaladevI, 159
Chauri Chaura incident, 71
Chelmsford, Lord, 39
Cheng Yin-Fun, 159

Chiang Kai Shek, 156, 157, 159. 163, 164, 165
166,200

India visit. 160-2
Meeting with Gaudhiji, 160-1
Chiang Kai Shek, Madame. 90. 156.157,159, 200
China, 27,28, 32,61, 199,201,229
Gpium trade, 29
China Defence League. 158
China-India Committee in London, 152
China-India relations. 47-8, 87-8, 99-108, 150-67
Indian Medical Mission, 103
Indian troops, 101-5
China Relief Fund, 153

2^4

Hattonallm and Ash

Chinese Revolution (1911), 6,48
Chintaniui, C.Y., 80
Cbirol, Valentine 8,44,47
Chit Hlaing. U., 134
Chiu, S.Y.. 87
Chotani, Mohammed, 76
Chou En Lai, 200
Christian Missionaries, 3
Christian Science Monitor, 91
Christianity, 27*8
ChuChiaHua 158
Chu Teh. 153, 158.200
Chung'king, 159
Churchill. Winston W, 160, 161
Civil disobedience movement, 71, 75, 118,119,
122,159

Civil service, 1

Entrance age, 8, 9
Clemenceau, 110
Coke. John, 14
Comrade, 52, 55, 95
Communal Award, 119
Communist Parly of China, 151
Congress Against Imperialism, 1927, Brussels, 24
Congress of oppressed Nationalities (1927), 104-7
Connemara, Lord, 12
Constitutional Party of Indo-China, 95
Coomaraswamy. Ananda, 27
Cotton, Henry, 2, 5,16, 40
Cotton import duty, 8
Crew, 57

Cripps, Stafford, 122,191
Cripps Mission, 122-3, 170
Cunningham, 5
Cursum Chang, 88
Curzon, Loid, 12,24, 36,40,47

Calcutta University convocation address, 40*1
Imperialist policy, 40-1

Dandi March, 118

Dange, S- A., 199

Das, B , 136

Das, C. R., 71.108, 109

Das. Sanghamugha, 130

Das, Taraknath, 96

Dassenaike, S.W., 176

Day of Deliverance, 121

Dayananda, Swami, 7

Desai Bhulabhai, 126,152, 173

Deshmukb, Gopal Hari, 8

De Silva, C. 3- C., 176

De Silva, M.W.H., 202

Dilke, Charles. 2

Direct Action Day, 192

Divide and rule policy, 37

Dobama Asia Yone (Burma), 139

Dodi,J.P.,209
Doimg Can Oieu, 9S
Drain theory, 4
Dnfferin, Lord, 11,12

St. Andrews Day Dinner sppecb, 12
Dutt, Batukeshwar, 75
Dutt, R. C, 4

Dutt Qioudhry, Rambhuj, 78
Dtttia, Madhusudan, 6

Bast India Association of London. 9
Ebrahim, Currimbhoy, S5
Economic grievances, 3>4
Egypt, 48. 51,149,202
Einstein, Albert, lOS
Elections (1937), 120
Elections (1945), 190-1
Congress manifesto, 204
Elgin, Lord, 31
Elmhirst, Lord, 89
Elphinstone, Mounstuart, 6

Far-East. 150-74
Fazl-i-Husain, Mian, 49

Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce
and Industry, 137
Fisher, Louis, 163
Foreign good’s boycott, 45,46
Forward, The, 102
Free Press of India, 93
Fujiwara Iwaichi, 169

Gafoor, Dr. Abdul, 56

Gandhi, M.K., 25, 42, 73, 74, 78. 105,123,156.
157, 217,228

Advent on political scene, 69-70
Arrested (April 1919), 70; (May 1930). 118;
(January 1932), 119; (August 1933), 119;
(August 1942), 124
Burma visit. 135
Ceylon visit, 93
Khilafat movement, 76-87
Letter to Every Japanese, 163
Meeting with Chiang Kai Shek, 160-1
Non-cooperation movement, 70-1
On Angio-Afghan relations, 96; Cabinet
Mission Plan, 191: Chinese revolution, 100,
107; Indian troops to China, 101; Japanese
aggression, 162-3; Nehru’s Ceylon visit, 127,
128: Palestine question, 146: Sino-Japanese
hostilities, 155, 160
Sympathy for Burma, 92
Gandhi-Irwin Pact, 118
Oandhi-Jinnah talks (1944), 125-6
Ganguli, J M-, 167
George, Lloyd, 75,77,79

In4ex

255

Genainy

Unification* 6
Chalibnama* 59
Ohose, Lai Mohan, 40
GhoN. Raab Behari, 35,37
Ghoih, Anrobindo, 6, 36
Ghosh. Sisir Kumar, 9
Gill, Nimnjan Singh, 170
Gokhaie, Gopal Krishana. 3. 10.16, 17.35.42,48
Golam Hussain, 48
Goonesinha, A. E., 176
Goswami, T> C., 102-3
Government of India Act (1919), 39, 75
Government of India Act (1935), 119
Greeco-Turkish War (1897), 31, 32
Grew, Edward, 48
Grover, B L., lO
Gunawardbena, D.C, 129
Gurkha League, 94

Habibullah Khan, Amir, 59
Hablul Matin, 52
Hamdard, 52, 95
Hamilton, George, 2,12
Hamilton, Lord, 31
Hardinge. Lord, 35 56, 57, 58
Harijan, The, 162
Harish Chandra, Bbartendu, 6
Hasrat Mohani, Maulana, 83
Hatta, Mohmmed, 105
Hedjaz Railway. 49
Henderson, william, 217
Hindu-Urdu controversy, 14
Hindu, The. 90.133,154, 159,165, 200, 206
Hindu Mahasabha, 94, 96, 97. 102, 124, 131, 139,
166, 178, 193
Hindmtan Review, 41
Hindustan Standard, 92, 133
Hindustan Times, lSl-2,166
Hindustani Seva Dal, 102
Hirohito, Emperor, 174
Hiroshi, Oshimo, 168-9
Hitavadi, The, 47
Ho-CbiMlnh 198
Hon Liang Chi Chao, 87
Hopkin*. Garland. 221
Houghton, Bernard, 2
Hsieh,S.T.. 156
Hsu Chi Mo, 87
Hu Shih, 87
Hu Shin. 89
Hunae, A.O., 1,10,11

Open letter to Calcutta University Gradoaies,
10-11

Hunter, W. W., 13

Hunter Committee Report. 70,80

llbeitBill,8«9.13
Imperial Ourbar (1877), 8.10
Inahara* Kat Sttgi, 171
Inayatniiab, King. 98
IndtoLeegne, 9
Indian Aims Act, 8
Indian Association, 7,9
Indian CSouncil of World Affairs, 206,215
Indian DaHy Mall, 137
Indian Ltdependence League, 169-70
Indian League in London, 140,193
Indian Medical Mission to China, 155,165,166-7
Indim Mirror, The, 16
Indian Mutiny (1857), 13,43
Indian National Army, 170-3
Trial, 190

Indian National Congress

Declaration independence aim, 118
Early years, 11-2; Official attitude. 12
Extremists, 35-7
First session, 4,11
Foremnners, 9-10
Lucknow Pact, 39, 70
Ministries (1937-39), 120-1
Moderates, 34
Muslim delegates, 16
Origin, 9-11
Surat session (1907), 37
Indian National Liberal Federation, 81, 83
Indian National Union, 11
Indian Press, 6, 32
Indian Review, 41
Indim Social Reformer, 53
Indian Textile Journal, 45
Indian United Patriotic Association, IS
Indian Volunteers Army, 199
Indochina. 193, 194,196, 197, 198, 199
Indonesia, 193, 194-S, 196-7, 199
Indonesian Conference (1949), 231
tndttPrekash, 36

Institute of Pacific Relations, 133, 173
Interim Government, 192
International Labour Organisation, 176
International Peace Campaign, Geneva, 152
Iqbal, Muhammad, 52,97
Iran, 148-9,202
Iraq, 149

Irwin, Lord, 75,118
Ishak, Professor, 31
Islam Rdbi, 32
Italo-Dirkirii War, 39. 50 3
Ifladu press. 53
Italy

Unification, 6
Iwakitfo, Col-, 169,170
Iyengar, Ramaswami, 100

256

indtan /Nationalism and Asia

Iyengar, S< Srinivas, 74,100,102,109
Iyer, G. S., 4.10
Iyer, Kamaswami, 78

Jain, M-S., 38

Jallianwalla Bagh massacre, 70,81
Jamiat-uI-Ulcma-i-Hind, 83, 144,147
Jamnl Pasha, 59

Japan, 27,45-7, 87, 94*5,150, 166*74,201,213,229
Attack on China, 150-9, 230
Imperialism, 94
Indian students, 45, 46
Vivekananda’s visit, 31-2
Japan India Society. 45
Japan-India trade, 45
Weekly Mail, 46
Japanese Chronicle, 46
Japanese press, 46
Java, 196

Jayakar, M-R , 71, 73, 136, 161

Jinha, M. A., 39, 60. 70,71, 72-3. 74, 78, 81, 120,

136.148.149,150,178.196, 198

On Palestine pioblem, 143, 145, 147, 148, Quit
India movement, 124
Resigned from Congress. 70
Jogendra Singh, Sardar, 175
Jount electorate, 73
Jones, F. C.. 173
Jones, William, 5
Joshi, K. M., 176, 177
Joshi, P. C., 193
Joshi. S.C.. 176
Junankar, N. S.. 220
Jwang, E., 176

Kal, The, 47

Kamraj Nadar, 194

Kayastha Samachar, 41

Kclkar, N.C.. 71, 131

Kemal Pasha, Mustafa, 72, 82, 83, 84,97

Ker, J- Campbell. 44

Kexhari, 42, 45

Kbadilkar, R.K., 194

Khalid Beg, 58

Khaliq-U7-Zaman, Chowdhary, 150,178

Khan, Syed Ahmed, 13,17,30, 31

Khilafat movement, 70, 72, 75-87,96,109

Kidwai, Shaikh Mushir Husain. 49

Kikukawa, T., 176-7

Kitchlew. Dr., 81

Kohn. Hans, 49

Koirala, B-P-, 131

Koirala, Krishna Prasad, 94

Konoye, Prince, 167

Koo, Dr., 159

Korea. 41

Kripalanl, J.B., 198,199.201-2. 205
Krishana Menon, V.K., 193
Kunzru, H.N., 173,195
Kuomintang Party, 151,157
Kyaw Myint, U., 134,137

Labour Government (UK), 190
Lajpat Rai, Lala. 3,16,35. 36,37,42, 47, 73. 80,
82.102

Laljee, Hosseinbhoy A., 202

Landholders Society, 9

Lanka Sama Samaj Party, 127

Lanka Sundaram, 128

Latif, Abdul. 13

Lawrence, Pethick, 191

Lawton, Lancelot, 46

Leader. The. 137,138

League Against Imperialism, 106-7

League of Nations, 109, 145,151,152

League of the Oppressed Peoples, 95

Leakat Hussain, 56

Lebanon, 149, 150

Levi, Werner, 33. 217, 219

Liang Chi-Chao. 88

Libera] Party, 49

Liberalism, 1,5

Linlithgow, Lord, 120,121

Lohia, Ram Manohar, 131

London Times, The, 163

Lovett, 44

Lytton, Lord, 1, 4. 8

M- A. O. College, Aligarh, 14,54
MacDonald, Ramsay, 38, 74, 119
Madani, R. P-, 96
Madras Mahajan Sabha, 10
Madras Liberal League, 76
Mahendra Pratup, Raja, 58, 59, 95, 167
Mahmud Hassan, Maulana, 59, 96
Mahmudabad, Raja of, 145
Mahratta, The, 53
Maine, Henry, 1,5
Mai The Chau, 198, 209, 213
Majumdar, R.C., 5, 85
Malabari, M., 8.10

Malaviya, Madan Mohan, 2, 35, 71, 78, 79, 80,
94,102

Malaya, 132-3, 155, 193, 201
Malik, Hafij, 16
Mallik, D N.. 95
Man Singh, Khadga, 130
Man Singh, Khanda, 130
Mandtester Guardian, 206
Manchurian crisis, 150-1
Mandalik, Viswanath Narayan, 8
Mansergb, Nicholas, 220

tn^

257

MAo Tae Tong, 1S8, i65 ,200
Mao Tun, 88-9
Marshall. John. 5
Masani, M.R., 143
Mathura Singh. 59
Maung Maung, 93
Maung Maungji, 134,137,

Mazhar-UKHaq. 39.48.54,57
Mehdi All Khan, Nawab, 37
Mehta, Jamnadas, 176, 177
Metha, Pheroz Shah, 9,29, 35
Mesopotamia, 106*7
Middle East. 140-50,201, 202-3
Mill, John StuarU 5
Minglun Sayadaw, 134
Minto, Lady, 35
Minto, Lord. 37, 38, 49
Minto*Morley Reforms (1909), 38
Mitra, Dinbandu, 6
Mitra, Kishori Chandra, 8
Mitra, N. N , 90
Mitra, Rajendra Lai, 5,6
Mitra, Satya, 4
Mitter, B.L-, ISl
Mitter, Ramesh Chandra, 13
Moderate Conference (1919), 78
Modern Review, 99,129, 132
Mohammed Ali, 55, 56, 79, 82, 86, 95. 96, 100,
101,108,109

Mohammedan Anglo Oriental Defence Associa¬
tion of Upper India, 15
Mohammedan Association, 13
Mohammedan Literary and Scientific Society,
Calcutta. 13

Mohan Singh, Captain. 169. 170
Mohmed Ali, 78
Mohsin-ul-MuIk, 37, 49-50
Montague, E. S-, 38.96
Montague-Chclmsford Reforms, 39
Moonje. B. S-, 71, 136, 162
Moosi Raza, Imam, 48
Moplahs, 72
Morison, Principal, 14
Morley, Lord, 2,37, 38,43, 49
^ount^tten, Lord, 192
Mudaliar, Ramaswami, 136
Mudholkar, R. N., 57
Muhammad, Nawab Syed, 57
Muhammad Ali. Maulana, 37, 38
Muhammadi, 52, 56

Mukherjee, Shyama Prasad, 193, 200,204
Muhammad Shafi, 73.97
Mukhopadhyay, Bhudev, 6
Muller, Max, 5
Munro, Thomas, 6
Muslim nationalism, 12-7

Mustafa Momin, 213

Nadir Khan. 99,132
Nag. DS.. 205
Nag, Kalidas, 87

Naidu, Sarojini, 109,175,194,209, 221

Nair, Sank|iran, 5

Naoroji, Dadabhai, 3,4,12.35

Narayan. Jayaprakash, 131

Nasrulhd) Khan, Sardar, 59

National Committee for India’s Freedom, 140

National Liberal Federation, 158

National Mohammedan Association, 13

National Party, 71

Nationalism

Asian consciousness, 23-34
Factors. 1-12
Navy strike, 190,191,196
Nehru, Jawaharlal, 5, 17, 24, 25, 42, 54, 72, 73,
74.80,84. 98,164,165,168, 194,202,228
Advice to Japan (1946), 201
At Asian Relations Conference (1947), 206,
207-9,210,217,218, 220,222, 231
At Congress of Oppressed Nationalities, 105-6;
Burma visit, 138
Ceylon visit, 127-8
China visit, 156-8
Forms Interim Government, 192
Malaya visit, 132

On Asiatic Federation, 130, 140,177-8,204-5;
Burmese question, 137, 140; Chinese revolu¬
tion, 103; Cripps Mission, 123; Gandhi-
Irwin Pact, 118-19; Government of India Act
(1935), 119; Indon^ian question, 195, 196,
197; Japanese aggression, 162; Medical Mis¬
sion to China, 167; Middle East, 204; Pales¬
tine question, 142, 143, 145-6, 147; Sino-
Japanese hostilities, 151, 152, 154; Vietnam
issue, 198

Requested Jinnah to join Congress, 121
South East Asia visit, 206
Nehru, Motilal, 71, 73, 77, 79, 80,100
Nehru Report, 73-4
Nepal, 94, 130-2
New York Herald Tribune, 220
New York Tinted, 221
News Chronicle (London), 221
Noguchi, 155

Non-cooperation movement, 70-1,79-81
North China Star, 157

Obedullah Sindhi, Maulana, 59
Obeidullah, 95, 96
Official Central Daily News, 164
Ohkuma, Shigenou, 47
Okakura Kakuzo, 27,32,39

258

Indian NatUmalism and AMa

Okazaki, 168
Okuma. Count, 45
Opium trade (China), 29,48
Orient Bank of India, 55
Ottama, U., 93,134
Ozaki, Lt. Col., 169

PiUsa Akhbar, 51, 52

Pal, Bipin Chandra, 4, 6, 7, 27, 36, 56, 57, 80
Paleitine problem, 141-8,149,150,202, 203, 228,
229-30

Pan-Asiatic Conference (1926), 104
Pan-Asiatic Labour Conference (1934), 176-7
Pan Asfaism, 39-61
Pan-Islamic Army, 59
Pan-Islamism, 30-1,48-61, 75
Pandit, Viiay Lakshmi, 133, 140, 160, f74, 193,
194

Pandurang, Dadoba, 8

Panikkar, K. M.. 26.178,220

Pantulu, Viresalingam, 8

Paris Peace Conference, 76

Patel, Vallabhbhai, 71,119,136,164,195, 200

Patl, Mrs., Rukmuni Lakshmi, 93

Patriotic Association, 17

Paul Fang. 140,166

Peace and Empire Conference (1938), 145
Peking Lecture Association, 87
Perara, N.H, 129
Perry, E., 1

Persia. 40, 48-9, 51.61
Philippines, 197
Phule, Jotiba Govind, 8
Pitaka Niketan, 87
Pohekar, O. S«, 91
PolMcal Bhomiyo, 53
Poona Pact, 119
Poona Sarvajanik Sabha, 10
Poverty, 4

Prachanda Gorkha (Nepal), 130
Pradhan, R. G., 8
Praja Parishad (Nepal), 131
Prakash, Sir, 98
Prasad, Bimal, 107

Prasad, Rajendra, 37,71,156,162,193
Prince of Wales visit (1905), 37
Provisional Government of Azad Hind, 171
Provisional Government of India (Kabul), 59,
95-6

Punjabee,Vae, 53
Quit Asia Day, 194

Quit India Movement, 124,13], 164,171

Racial discrimination, 2
Radfi^krishnan, S., 1^

Rafi, A. K., 176

R^jagopalachari, C-, 71, 80,86,125,138,162

Rajwade, Lakshmibai G., 174

Ram Krishna, 7

Ranadev M. G., 5, 8

Ranga, N.G., 196

Rangacbarlar, T., 136

Ranglal, 6

Rao, V. K. R. V., 210
RatcIiiTe, S- K., 11
Red Crescent Society, 51,55, 56
Reddi, Muthu Lakshmi, 175
Regional integration, 174-9
Regmi, D. R., 131
Religious reforms, 7-8
Responsivist Party, 71
Reza Shah, 148-149
Ripon, Lord, 8,10
Rolland, Romain, 89,105
Ronaldshay, Lord, 29
Roosevelt, President, 160, 164
Round Table Conference, 75, 118-19, 134,136,
137

Rousseau, J< J>, 5

Rowlatt Act, 69-70, 81

Roy, Govinda Chandra, 6

Roy, M: N., 151

Roy, P. C., 59

Roy, kam Mohan, 7, 8,27

Royal Commission on Palestine, 144,16

Rushbrook Williams, L. F., 44

Russell, Bertrand, 105

Russell, William, 2

Russian Revolution (1905), 6

Russian Revolutiom (1917), 6

Russo-Japanese War (1905), 6, 35,41-5, 92

Russo-Turkish War (1877-78), 30

Sahajananda Sarswati, Swami, 162
Sahay, Ananda Mohan, 170
Saklatwala, 100
Salisbury, Lord, 5

San Francisco Conference (1945), 133,140,216

Sangathan movement, 72

Sankara, Bikshu, 127

Santhanam, K., 210

Sanyal, Nalinakshya, 95

Sapru. T(d Bahadur. 70, 72, 80, 100, 126,161 '

Sarda, Har Bilas, 7

Sastri, Srinivas,i70

Slatyamurti, S., 80,95,100,139, 152

Satyananda Puri, Swami, 169

Satyapal, Dr, 98

.Savaikar, V.D., 125-6,131. 139

Saw, U.. 202

Sayani. R- M-, 16

index

259

Scyed Abmed, Sbomsul Ulenu, 60
Sayeed. Khalib B., 14
Styeguca, Shighetomo, 171
Seely, 3

Seo, Keehab Chandra, 7, 26,27, 32, 228
On Asian unity, 27-9
Sen, Kihitfmohaa, 87
Senanayake, Mr., 217
Separate electorate, 39, 73
Servants of Caba, 54
Servants of India Society, 35
Shakespeare, Mr., 14
Sbariar, Sultan, 197, 209, 210
Sharma, B. N., 78
Shaukat Ali, 54, 58,73, 79, 97, 132
Shelly Wang, 166
Shibusawa, Elichi, 46
Shiva Prasad, Raja, 15
Shiva Rao, 133,136
Sradhananda, Swami, 72, 78, 79
Shridharani, Krishnalal, 178, 218
Shuddhi moveinent, 72
Shujullah, Dr., 59
Siam, 197

Siddiqui, Abdur Rahman, 195, 204

Sikandar Hyat Khan, 149

Silk Letters Conspiracy, 59-60

Silva, Colvin’d 129

Simla Conference (1945), 126

Simon Commission, 72-3,135

Sinha, S. P., 35, 39

Sino-Japanese hostilities, 150*9

Sltaramayya, Pattabhi, 10

Smedley, Agnes, 153

Smith, Dunlop, 37

So Nyun, U., 135

So Theim, U., 134

Social reforms, 7-8

Soekamo, 90,194-5

Sonakul Dhani, 90

Sonriya, Queen, 97,98

Spencer, Herbert, 5

Sri Ram, 207

Stcar of India, 142,215

Statesman, The, 60,160

Strachey, John, 1, 3,14

Suderi, Zia-ud-Din Ahmed, 85

Suez Canal, 24

Suhrawardy, Dr, 52

Suhrawardy, H.S., 147

Sujuki, B., 176

Sidtiki, K.. 176

Sun Fo, Dr., 165

Sun Yat Sen, 48,99, 103

Sun Yat Sen. Madam. 1Q3,105,158

Sundanun, Kanga, 176

Sui^ Mai, Captain, 172
Swaminathan, Mrs. Ammu, 194
Swaraj Party, 71-2
Syria, 149/150

Ta Kang Pao, The, 164-5
Tablig movonent, 72
Tagore, Debendra Nath, 3, 7
Tagore, Dwijendra Nath, 6
Tagore, Rabindra Nath, 6,27, 29, 32, 39, 41,42,
87. 88. 156, 167, 175
China visit, 88-90, 91
Japan visit, 90

On Sino-Japanese hostilities, 151,153,155
Pan-Asian ideas, 39
South-East Asia visit. 90-1, 95
Tai Chi Tao, 159
Taka Kusu, J., 87
Taki Fujia, Miss, 175
Tanaka, Naokichi, 171
Tanzim movement, 72
Tao, Prof., 155

Tarkhandkar. Dadoba Pandurang, 2

Telang, K.T., 5,8, 9

Terauchi, Count, 172

Than Tun, 139

Theopbist movement, 8

Thivy, Mr., 210

Tibet, 40

Tilak, Bal Gangadhar, 2, 3,5,35,36,37,39,42.
45,85, 110

Hmes, The (London), 220
Times of India, 56
Tohjo, Hideki, 170,171
Toyama, Mitsuru, 47
Treaty of Laussane, 84
Treaty of Severes, 79-80, 83, 84
rr/bwie.The, 53.137
Tripura Hltaishi, 44
Tsiang, T.F., 164
Tsiang Fe, 165
Tufail Ahmed, 38
Tuisi Meber, 94

Turkey-India relations. 48-61, 75
Tyabji, Badruddin, 9.15.16

Udai Shankar, 152

United Nations, 211,217,220,222,231,232
Upadbyaya, K.P., 131
Vr-imNoJaf, 52

Vaidya, K.B., 165,166
Vakii, 51, 52.60
Verma, Ravindra, 198-9
Vernacular Press Act, 8
Victoria, Queen, 30

260

kdlm NtttlomUm (od Ask

Vidyasagar, Ishwar Chaodra, 6,8
Vietnam, 198-9

Vivekananda, Swami, 7-8,27,39,42
Japan visit, 31-2,39
Von Hentig, Dr., 58

Wacha, Dishnaw, 30

Wahabi movement, 13

Wall, Maulana Qutubuddin Abdul, 142

Wang Ching Wei, 167

Wasti, Sycd Razi, 38

Watan, 51

Wavcll, Lord, 126, 190,192
Wcdderburn, 11
Wellington Koo, V.K., 153
Western education, 5,10,12
Whitehead, H-, 12
Wilkins, Charles. 5
Wilson, H.H, 5

Women Association of Indonesia, 175
Woild Parliamentary Congress of Arab and
Muslim Countnes foi the Defence of Palestine,
146

World War 1,38,39.58,69,84,87, 107,148
World War II, 120*1, 123,140,148,160, 190
World Youth Peace Coogresa (1928), 95,
103 *

Y8gnik,lDdulal,85

Yakub, Md., 143,144

Yakub Hassan, 76

Yeh Chien*Ying, 156

Yowif Mfl, 92,96,107

Young Men’s Buddhist Association, 92,93

Young Thakins (Burma), 139

Young Tuik Movement, 6

Young Turk Revolution (1908), 48

Youngbusband Mission, 40

ZafarAli,55

ZafarAliKhan,55.95,99
Zafnillah Khan, 190
Zmindar, 51,52,55,95
Zamindary Association of Bengal, 9
Zhukhov, 22)

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "INDIAN NATIONALISM AND ASIA (1900-1947)"

See other formats